Literature DB >> 34049336

Fully Automatic Deep Learning in Bi-institutional Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Effects of Cohort Size and Heterogeneity.

Nils Netzer, Cedric Weißer, Patrick Schelb, Xianfeng Wang, Xiaoyan Qin, Magdalena Görtz1, Viktoria Schütz1, Jan Philipp Radtke, Thomas Hielscher2, Constantin Schwab3, Albrecht Stenzinger3, Tristan Anselm Kuder4, Regula Gnirs5, Markus Hohenfellner1, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Klaus H Maier-Hein, David Bonekamp.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The potential of deep learning to support radiologist prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation has been demonstrated.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of increased and diversified training data (TD) on deep learning performance for detection and segmentation of clinically significant prostate cancer-suspicious lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, biparametric (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted) prostate MRI acquired with multiple 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI scanners in consecutive men was used for training and testing of prostate segmentation and lesion detection networks. Ground truth was the combination of targeted and extended systematic MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies, with significant prostate cancer defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group greater than or equal to 2. U-Nets were internally validated on full, reduced, and PROSTATEx-enhanced training sets and subsequently externally validated on the institutional test set and the PROSTATEx test set. U-Net segmentation was calibrated to clinically desired levels in cross-validation, and test performance was subsequently compared using sensitivities, specificities, predictive values, and Dice coefficient.
RESULTS: One thousand four hundred eighty-eight institutional examinations (median age, 64 years; interquartile range, 58-70 years) were temporally split into training (2014-2017, 806 examinations, supplemented by 204 PROSTATEx examinations) and test (2018-2020, 682 examinations) sets. In the test set, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) cutoffs greater than or equal to 3 and greater than or equal to 4 on a per-patient basis had sensitivity of 97% (241/249) and 90% (223/249) at specificity of 19% (82/433) and 56% (242/433), respectively. The full U-Net had corresponding sensitivity of 97% (241/249) and 88% (219/249) with specificity of 20% (86/433) and 59% (254/433), not statistically different from PI-RADS (P > 0.3 for all comparisons). U-Net trained using a reduced set of 171 consecutive examinations achieved inferior performance (P < 0.001). PROSTATEx training enhancement did not improve performance. Dice coefficients were 0.90 for prostate and 0.42/0.53 for MRI lesion segmentation at PI-RADS category 3/4 equivalents.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large institutional test set, U-Net confirms similar performance to clinical PI-RADS assessment and benefits from more TD, with neither institutional nor PROSTATEx performance improved by adding multiscanner or bi-institutional TD.
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34049336     DOI: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Invest Radiol        ISSN: 0020-9996            Impact factor:   6.016


  4 in total

Review 1.  Role of Deep Learning in Prostate Cancer Management: Past, Present and Future Based on a Comprehensive Literature Review.

Authors:  Nithesh Naik; Theodoros Tokas; Dasharathraj K Shetty; B M Zeeshan Hameed; Sarthak Shastri; Milap J Shah; Sufyan Ibrahim; Bhavan Prasad Rai; Piotr Chłosta; Bhaskar K Somani
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 4.964

Review 2.  Imaging of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Bernd Joachim Krause; Viktoria Schütz; David Bonekamp; Sarah Marie Schwarzenböck; Markus Hohenfellner
Journal:  Dtsch Arztebl Int       Date:  2021-10-22       Impact factor: 8.251

3.  Fully automated detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancer on MR images using a cascaded convolutional neural network.

Authors:  Lina Zhu; Ge Gao; Yi Zhu; Chao Han; Xiang Liu; Derun Li; Weipeng Liu; Xiangpeng Wang; Jingyuan Zhang; Xiaodong Zhang; Xiaoying Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 4.  A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging.

Authors:  Indrani Bhattacharya; Yash S Khandwala; Sulaiman Vesal; Wei Shao; Qianye Yang; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Christian A Kunder; James D Brooks; Yipeng Hu; Mirabela Rusu; Geoffrey A Sonn
Journal:  Ther Adv Urol       Date:  2022-10-10
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.