| Literature DB >> 33919299 |
Alessandro Bevilacqua1,2, Margherita Mottola2,3, Fabio Ferroni4, Alice Rossi4, Giampaolo Gavelli4, Domenico Barone4.
Abstract
Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is crucial in PCa management. 3T-magnetic resonance (MR) systems may have a novel role in quantitative imaging and early csPCa prediction, accordingly. In this study, we develop a radiomic model for predicting csPCa based solely on native b2000 diffusion weighted imaging (DWIb2000) and debate the effectiveness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the same task. In total, 105 patients were retrospectively enrolled between January-November 2020, with confirmed csPCa or ncsPCa based on biopsy. DWIb2000 and ADC images acquired with a 3T-MRI were analyzed by computing 84 local first-order radiomic features (RFs). Two predictive models were built based on DWIb2000 and ADC, separately. Relevant RFs were selected through LASSO, a support vector machine (SVM) classifier was trained using repeated 3-fold cross validation (CV) and validated on a holdout set. The SVM models rely on a single couple of uncorrelated RFs (ρ < 0.15) selected through Wilcoxon rank-sum test (p ≤ 0.05) with Holm-Bonferroni correction. On the holdout set, while the ADC model yielded AUC = 0.76 (95% CI, 0.63-0.96), the DWIb2000 model reached AUC = 0.84 (95% CI, 0.63-0.90), with specificity = 75%, sensitivity = 90%, and informedness = 0.65. This study establishes the primary role of 3T-DWIb2000 in PCa quantitative analyses, whilst ADC can remain the leading sequence for detection.Entities:
Keywords: cancer heterogeneity; image processing; machine learning; prostate cancer; radiomics; tumor staging
Year: 2021 PMID: 33919299 PMCID: PMC8143289 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Clinical parameters of the study population, including age, PSA level surveyed contextually to mpMRI, location of PCa lesions, PI-RADS score and GS.
| Study Parameters | ncsPCa | csPCa |
|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 26 | 50 |
| Mean ± SD | ||
| Age (years) | 65 ± 8.8 | 66 ± 6.8 |
| PSA (ng/mL) | 5.30 ± 2.97 | 7.80 ± 7.48 |
| Range | ||
| Age (years) | [42÷78] | [48÷79] |
| PSA (ng/mL) | [0.80÷12.20] | [0.38÷37.00] |
| Lesions’ location | ||
| PZ | 25 | 64 |
| TZ | - | 1 |
| CZ | 8 | 10 |
| PZ-TZ 1 | 2 | 1 |
| PZ-CZ 1 | 1 | 3 |
| AFS | - | 1 |
| No. of lesions per PiRADS score | ||
| PI-RADS 3 | 16 | 15 |
| PI-RADS 4 | 16 | 34 |
| PI-RADS 5 | 4 | 33 |
| No. of lesions per GS | ||
| GS 3 + 3 (ISUP 1) | 26 | |
| GS 3 + 4 (ISUP 2) | - | 22 |
| GS 4 + 3 (ISUP 3) | - | 14 |
| GS 4 + 4 (ISUP 4) | - | 8 |
| GS 4 + 5 (ISUP 5) | - | 4 |
| GS 5 + 5 (ISUP 5) | - | 2 |
1 Partial overlapping between zones.
DWI acquisition protocol for the seventy-six patients included in the study.
| DWI Protocol | |
|---|---|
| Coil | Multicoil |
| TR 1 (ms) | [3000, 5804] |
| TE 1 (ms) | [80, 87] |
| No. of slices 1 | [24, 33] |
| Slice thickness (mm) | 3 |
| Slice gap (mm) | 3 |
| b values (s/mm2) | 0, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 800, 1500, 2000 |
| No. of gradients | 3 |
| Field of view 1 (mm2) | [160, 260] |
| Acquisition matrix 1 | [96, 176] |
| Pixel spacing 1 (mm) | [1.41, 1.67] |
1 Range.
Figure 1(a) ROIs of PCa lesions outlined on DWIb2000 for a representative ncsPCa; (b) ROIs of PCa lesions outlined on DWIb2000 for a representative ncsPCa.
Figure 2Development of the radiomic model to predict csPCa. (a) RFs are normalized and standardized, and (b) selected through LASSO. (c) A linear SVM classifier is trained and (d) 3-fold CV is performed for internal validation. (e) The final model is selected and (f) externally validated on the holdout test set.
Figure 3(a) Coefficients of the ten RFs selected through LASSO for ADC and (b) their correlation matrix. (c) Coefficients of the ten RFs selected through LASSO for DWIb2000 and (d) their correlation matrix. In (b,d), the white circles highlight the uncorrelated couples (ρ < 0.15).
Figure 4(a) ROC curve achieved on the training set for ADC and DWIb2000 models. (b) ROC curves achieved on the holdout test set for ADC and DWIb2000 models.
Figure 5(a) Waterfall plot achieved for the predictive model based on DWIb2000 on the training set. (b) Waterfall plot achieved for the predictive model based on DWIb2000 on the holdout test set.
Figure 6Separation between csPCa and ncsPCa performed by the trained SVM classifier referring to DWIb2000, with the separation hyperplane highlighted in black.
Figure 7(a) The boxplot of the separation between ncsPCa (light green box) and csPCa (dark blue box) for the training set where the two groups are separated with a p-value~10−5. (b) The boxplot of the separation between ncsPCa (light green box) and csPCa (dark blue box) for the test set, where the two groups are separated with p-value = 7∙10−3.
Comparison of our findings with the scientific works published since 2015 (from PubMed database) predicting csPCa (independently of the lesion zone).
| Year | Author | mpMRI Sequences | Features | AUC | SE | SP | I |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Fehr et al. [ | T2w, ADC | 18 RFs | 0.83 | - | - | - |
| 2017 | Barbieri et al. [ | ADC, IVIM | ADCmean ( | 0.79 | 0.85 | 0.74 | 0.59 |
| 2018 | Bonekamp et al. [ | T2w, ADC | 10 RFs | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.58 | 0.55 |
| 2019 | Cristel et al. [ | DCE-MRI | Ktrans | 0.75 | 0.95 | 0.61 | 0.56 |
| 2019 | Min et al. [ | T2w, ADC, DWIb1500 | 9 RFs | 0.82 | 0.84 | 0.73 | 0.57 |
| 2020 | Zhang et al. [ | T2w, ADC, DWI | 10 RFs | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.73 | 0.53 |
| 2020 | Hiremath et al. [ | ADC | ADCmean (b[0–1300]) | 0.85 | 0.77 | 0.81 | 0.58 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The comparison is based on mpMRI sequences adopted, number of RFs, AUC values, sensitivity (SE), specificity (SP) and informedness (I).