Vito Lorusso1,2,3, Boukary Kabre4, Geraldine Pignot5, Nicolas Branger5, Andrea Pacchetti5, Jeanne Thomassin-Piana6, Serge Brunelle7, Nicola Nicolai8, Gennaro Musi9,10, Naji Salem11, Emanuele Montanari9,12, Ottavio de Cobelli9,10, Gwenaelle Gravis13, Jochen Walz5. 1. Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France. vito.lorusso@unimi.it. 2. Urology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. vito.lorusso@unimi.it. 3. University of Milan, Milan, Italy. vito.lorusso@unimi.it. 4. Department of Urology, CHU Yalgado Ouédraogo, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. 5. Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France. 6. Department of Pathology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France. 7. Department of Radiology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France. 8. Urology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. 9. University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 10. Department of Urology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 11. Department of Radiotherapy, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France. 12. Department of Urology, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. 13. Department of Oncology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) imaging has been revolutionized by the introduction of multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI). Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has always been considered a low-performance modality. To overcome this, a computerized artificial neural network analysis (ANNA/C-TRUS) of the TRUS based on an artificial intelligence (AI) analysis has been proposed. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system and its ability to improve conventional TRUS in PCa diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 64 patients with PCa and scheduled for radical prostatectomy who underwent TRUS followed by ANNA/C-TRUS analysis before the procedure. The results of ANNA/C-TRUS analysis with whole mount sections from final pathology. RESULTS: On a per-sectors analysis, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were 62%, 81%, 80%, 64% and 78% respectively. The values for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer were 69%, 77%, 88%, 50% and 75%. The diagnostic values for high grade tumours were 70%, 74%, 91%, 41% and 74%, respectively. Cancer volume (≤ 0.5 or greater) did not influence the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system. CONCLUSIONS: ANNA/C-TRUS represents a promising diagnostic tool and application of AI for PCa diagnosis. It improves the ability of conventional TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer, preserving its simplicity and availability. Since it is an AI system, it does not hold the inter-observer variability nor a learning curve. Multicenter biopsy-based studies with the inclusion of an adequate number of patients are needed to confirm these results.
PURPOSE: Prostate cancer (PCa) imaging has been revolutionized by the introduction of multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI). Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) has always been considered a low-performance modality. To overcome this, a computerized artificial neural network analysis (ANNA/C-TRUS) of the TRUS based on an artificial intelligence (AI) analysis has been proposed. Our aim was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system and its ability to improve conventional TRUS in PCa diagnosis. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 64 patients with PCa and scheduled for radical prostatectomy who underwent TRUS followed by ANNA/C-TRUS analysis before the procedure. The results of ANNA/C-TRUS analysis with whole mount sections from final pathology. RESULTS: On a per-sectors analysis, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV) and accuracy were 62%, 81%, 80%, 64% and 78% respectively. The values for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer were 69%, 77%, 88%, 50% and 75%. The diagnostic values for high grade tumours were 70%, 74%, 91%, 41% and 74%, respectively. Cancer volume (≤ 0.5 or greater) did not influence the diagnostic performance of the ANNA/C-TRUS system. CONCLUSIONS: ANNA/C-TRUS represents a promising diagnostic tool and application of AI for PCa diagnosis. It improves the ability of conventional TRUS to diagnose prostate cancer, preserving its simplicity and availability. Since it is an AI system, it does not hold the inter-observer variability nor a learning curve. Multicenter biopsy-based studies with the inclusion of an adequate number of patients are needed to confirm these results.
Authors: T Loch; I Leuschner; C Genberg; K Weichert-Jacobsen; F Küppers; M Retz; J Lehmann; E Yfantis; M Evans; V Tsarev; M Stöckle Journal: Urologe A Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 0.639
Authors: T Loch; I Leuschner; C Genberg; K Weichert-Jacobsen; F Küppers; E Yfantis; M Evans; V Tsarev; M Stöckle Journal: Prostate Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Jean-Michel Correas; Ethan J Halpern; Richard G Barr; Sangeet Ghai; Jochen Walz; Sylvain Bodard; Charles Dariane; Jean de la Rosette Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-04-18 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Erik Briers; Thomas Van den Broeck; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Stefano Fanti; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Nikos Grivas; Jeremy Grummet; Ann M Henry; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Thomas B Lam; Michael Lardas; Matthew Liew; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Henk G van der Poel; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Thomas Wiegel; Peter-Paul M Willemse; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2020-11-07 Impact factor: 20.096
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
Authors: Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Antti S Rannikko; Marcelo Borghi; Valeria Panebianco; Lance A Mynderse; Markku H Vaarala; Alberto Briganti; Lars Budäus; Giles Hellawell; Richard G Hindley; Monique J Roobol; Scott Eggener; Maneesh Ghei; Arnauld Villers; Franck Bladou; Geert M Villeirs; Jaspal Virdi; Silvan Boxler; Grégoire Robert; Paras B Singh; Wulphert Venderink; Boris A Hadaschik; Alain Ruffion; Jim C Hu; Daniel Margolis; Sébastien Crouzet; Laurence Klotz; Samir S Taneja; Peter Pinto; Inderbir Gill; Clare Allen; Francesco Giganti; Alex Freeman; Stephen Morris; Shonit Punwani; Norman R Williams; Chris Brew-Graves; Jonathan Deeks; Yemisi Takwoingi; Mark Emberton; Caroline M Moore Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-03-18 Impact factor: 176.079