Literature DB >> 33709532

Performance of Deep Learning and Genitourinary Radiologists in Detection of Prostate Cancer Using 3-T Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Ruiming Cao1, Xinran Zhong2, Sohrab Afshari3, Ely Felker3, Voraparee Suvannarerg3,4, Teeravut Tubtawee3,5, Sitaram Vangala6, Fabien Scalzo7, Steven Raman3, Kyunghyun Sung3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several deep learning-based techniques have been developed for prostate cancer (PCa) detection using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), but few of them have been rigorously evaluated relative to radiologists' performance or whole-mount histopathology (WMHP).
PURPOSE: To compare the performance of a previously proposed deep learning algorithm, FocalNet, and expert radiologists in the detection of PCa on mpMRI with WMHP as the reference. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective, single-center study.
SUBJECTS: A total of 553 patients (development cohort: 427 patients; evaluation cohort: 126 patients) who underwent 3-T mpMRI prior to radical prostatectomy from October 2010 to February 2018. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging. ASSESSMENT: FocalNet was trained on the development cohort to predict PCa locations by detection points, with a confidence value for each point, on the evaluation cohort. Four fellowship-trained genitourinary (GU) radiologists independently evaluated the evaluation cohort to detect suspicious PCa foci, annotate detection point locations, and assign a five-point suspicion score (1: least suspicious, 5: most suspicious) for each annotated detection point. The PCa detection performance of FocalNet and radiologists were evaluated by the lesion detection sensitivity vs. the number of false-positive detections at different thresholds on suspicion scores. Clinically significant lesions: Gleason Group (GG) ≥ 2 or pathological size ≥ 10 mm. Index lesions: the highest GG and the largest pathological size (secondary). STATISTICAL TESTS: Bootstrap hypothesis test for the detection sensitivity between radiologists and FocalNet.
RESULTS: For the overall differential detection sensitivity, FocalNet was 5.1% and 4.7% below the radiologists for clinically significant and index lesions, respectively; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.413 and P = 0.282, respectively). DATA
CONCLUSION: FocalNet achieved slightly lower but not statistically significant PCa detection performance compared with GU radiologists. Compared with radiologists, FocalNet demonstrated similar detection performance for a highly sensitive setting (suspicion score ≥ 1) or a highly specific setting (suspicion score = 5), while lower performance in between. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.
© 2021 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  automatic cancer detection; deep learning; multiparametric MRI; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33709532      PMCID: PMC8812258          DOI: 10.1002/jmri.27595

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  19 in total

1.  PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Samuel G Armato; Henkjan Huisman; Karen Drukker; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Justin S Kirby; Nicholas Petrick; George Redmond; Maryellen L Giger; Kenny Cha; Artem Mamonov; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2018-11-10

2.  Joint Prostate Cancer Detection and Gleason Score Prediction in mp-MRI via FocalNet.

Authors:  Ruiming Cao; Amirhossein Mohammadian Bajgiran; Sohrab Afshari Mirak; Sepideh Shakeri; Xinran Zhong; Dieter Enzmann; Steven Raman; Kyunghyun Sung
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2019-02-27       Impact factor: 10.048

3.  Multifocality and prostate cancer detection by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with whole-mount histopathology.

Authors:  Jesse D Le; Nelly Tan; Eugene Shkolyar; David Y Lu; Lorna Kwan; Leonard S Marks; Jiaoti Huang; Daniel J A Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Radiomic Machine Learning for Characterization of Prostate Lesions with MRI: Comparison to ADC Values.

Authors:  David Bonekamp; Simon Kohl; Manuel Wiesenfarth; Patrick Schelb; Jan Philipp Radtke; Michael Götz; Philipp Kickingereder; Kaneschka Yaqubi; Bertram Hitthaler; Nils Gählert; Tristan Anselm Kuder; Fenja Deister; Martin Freitag; Markus Hohenfellner; Boris A Hadaschik; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Klaus H Maier-Hein
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology.

Authors:  Alan Priester; Shyam Natarajan; Pooria Khoshnoodi; Daniel J Margolis; Steven S Raman; Robert E Reiter; Jiaoti Huang; Warren Grundfest; Leonard S Marks
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-07-30       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Deep Convolutional Neural Network-based Software Improves Radiologist Detection of Malignant Lung Nodules on Chest Radiographs.

Authors:  Yongsik Sim; Myung Jin Chung; Elmar Kotter; Sehyo Yune; Myeongchan Kim; Synho Do; Kyunghwa Han; Hanmyoung Kim; Seungwook Yang; Dong-Jae Lee; Byoung Wook Choi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Characteristics of Detected and Missed Prostate Cancer Foci on 3-T Multiparametric MRI Using an Endorectal Coil Correlated With Whole-Mount Thin-Section Histopathology.

Authors:  Nelly Tan; Daniel J Margolis; David Y Lu; Kevin G King; Jiaoti Huang; Robert E Reiter; Steven S Raman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Multiparametric MRI and prostate cancer diagnosis and risk stratification.

Authors:  Baris Turkbey; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Curr Opin Urol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 2.309

9.  Interreader Variability of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2 in Detecting and Assessing Prostate Cancer Lesions at Prostate MRI.

Authors:  Matthew D Greer; Joanna H Shih; Nathan Lay; Tristan Barrett; Leonardo Bittencourt; Samuel Borofsky; Ismail Kabakus; Yan Mee Law; Jamie Marko; Haytham Shebel; Maria J Merino; Bradford J Wood; Peter A Pinto; Ronald M Summers; Peter L Choyke; Baris Turkbey
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Automated Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in mp-MRI Images Based on an End-to-End Deep Neural Network.

Authors:  Zhiwei Wang; Chaoyue Liu; Danpeng Cheng; Liang Wang; Xin Yang; Kwang-Ting Cheng
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 10.048

View more
  4 in total

1.  Adversarial training for prostate cancer classification using magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Lei Hu; Da-Wei Zhou; Xiang-Yu Guo; Wen-Hao Xu; Li-Ming Wei; Jun-Gong Zhao
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2022-06

Review 2.  Comparative performance of fully-automated and semi-automated artificial intelligence methods for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael Roberts; Leonardo Rundo; Nikita Sushentsev; Nadia Moreira Da Silva; Michael Yeung; Tristan Barrett; Evis Sala
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2022-03-28

Review 3.  Current Value of Biparametric Prostate MRI with Machine-Learning or Deep-Learning in the Detection, Grading, and Characterization of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Henrik J Michaely; Giacomo Aringhieri; Dania Cioni; Emanuele Neri
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-24

4.  ESUR/ESUI position paper: developing artificial intelligence for precision diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Tobias Penzkofer; Anwar R Padhani; Baris Turkbey; Masoom A Haider; Henkjan Huisman; Jochen Walz; Georg Salomon; Ivo G Schoots; Jonathan Richenberg; Geert Villeirs; Valeria Panebianco; Olivier Rouviere; Vibeke Berg Logager; Jelle Barentsz
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 5.315

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.