Ruiming Cao1, Xinran Zhong2, Sohrab Afshari3, Ely Felker3, Voraparee Suvannarerg3,4, Teeravut Tubtawee3,5, Sitaram Vangala6, Fabien Scalzo7, Steven Raman3, Kyunghyun Sung3. 1. Department of Bioengineering, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. 5. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University, Songkhla, Thailand. 6. Department of Medicine Statistics Core, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA. 7. Department of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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