Literature DB >> 33392358

Semi-automated PIRADS scoring via mpMRI analysis.

Nikhil J Dhinagar1, William Speier1, Karthik V Sarma1, Alex Raman1, Adam Kinnaird2,3, Steven S Raman1, Leonard S Marks2, Corey W Arnold1,4.   

Abstract

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common solid organ cancer and second leading cause of death in men. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) enables detection of the most aggressive, clinically significant PCa (csPCa) tumors that require further treatment. A suspicious region of interest (ROI) detected on mpMRI is now assigned a Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score to standardize interpretation of mpMRI for PCa detection. However, there is significant inter-reader variability among radiologists in PIRADS score assignment and a minimal input semi-automated artificial intelligence (AI) system is proposed to harmonize PIRADS scores with mpMRI data. Approach: The proposed deep learning model (the seed point model) uses a simulated single-click seed point as input to annotate the lesion on mpMRI. This approach is in contrast to typical medical AI-based approaches that require annotation of the complete lesion. The mpMRI data from 617 patients used in this study were prospectively collected at a major tertiary U.S. medical center. The model was trained and validated to classify whether an mpMRI image had a lesion with a PIRADS score greater than or equal to PIRADS 4.
Results: The model yielded an average receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (ROC-AUC) of 0.704 over a 10-fold cross-validation, which is significantly higher than the previously published benchmark. Conclusions: The proposed model could aid in PIRADS scoring of mpMRI, providing second reads to promote quality as well as offering expertise in environments that lack a radiologist with training in prostate mpMRI interpretation. The model could help identify tumors with a higher PIRADS for better clinical management and treatment of PCa patients at an early stage.
© 2020 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System; deep learning; medical image analysis; multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging; prostate cancer

Year:  2020        PMID: 33392358      PMCID: PMC7769753          DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.7.6.064501

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)        ISSN: 2329-4302


  30 in total

Review 1.  Histologic grading of prostate cancer: a perspective.

Authors:  D F Gleason
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 3.466

2.  N4ITK: improved N3 bias correction.

Authors:  Nicholas J Tustison; Brian B Avants; Philip A Cook; Yuanjie Zheng; Alexander Egan; Paul A Yushkevich; James C Gee
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Application of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 (PI-RADS v2): Interobserver Agreement and Positive Predictive Value for Localization of Intermediate- and High-Grade Prostate Cancers on Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Authors:  Frank Chen; Steven Cen; Suzanne Palmer
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 4.  Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Authors:  Jurgen J Fütterer; Alberto Briganti; Pieter De Visschere; Mark Emberton; Gianluca Giannarini; Alex Kirkham; Samir S Taneja; Harriet Thoeny; Geert Villeirs; Arnauld Villers
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2015-02-02       Impact factor: 20.096

5.  The role of magnetic resonance imaging in delineating clinically significant prostate cancer.

Authors:  Karim Chamie; Geoffrey A Sonn; David S Finley; Nelly Tan; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Shyam Natarajan; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.649

6.  Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study.

Authors:  Yahui Peng; Yulei Jiang; Cheng Yang; Jeremy Bancroft Brown; Tatjana Antic; Ila Sethi; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Maryellen L Giger; Scott E Eggener; Aytekin Oto
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Prostate cancer risk stratification with magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ely R Felker; Daniel J Margolis; Nima Nassiri; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.498

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.

Authors:  Hashim U Ahmed; Ahmed El-Shater Bosaily; Louise C Brown; Rhian Gabe; Richard Kaplan; Mahesh K Parmar; Yolanda Collaco-Moraes; Katie Ward; Richard G Hindley; Alex Freeman; Alex P Kirkham; Robert Oldroyd; Chris Parker; Mark Emberton
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-20       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Comparison of Targeted vs Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Men Who Are Biopsy Naive: The Prospective Assessment of Image Registration in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer (PAIREDCAP) Study.

Authors:  Fuad F Elkhoury; Ely R Felker; Lorna Kwan; Anthony E Sisk; Merdie Delfin; Shyam Natarajan; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-09-01       Impact factor: 16.681

10.  Machine learning classifiers can predict Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer with greater accuracy than experienced radiologists.

Authors:  Michela Antonelli; Edward W Johnston; Nikolaos Dikaios; King K Cheung; Harbir S Sidhu; Mrishta B Appayya; Francesco Giganti; Lucy A M Simmons; Alex Freeman; Clare Allen; Hashim U Ahmed; David Atkinson; Sebastien Ourselin; Shonit Punwani
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.