Convolutional Neural Networks for Automated Classification of Prostate Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based on Image Quality

Interpreting Prostate Multiparametric MRI: Beyond Adenocarcinoma - Anatomical Variations, Mimickers, and Post-Intervention Changes

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an essential tool in the diagnostic pathway for prostate cancer. However, its accuracy can be confounded by a spectrum of noncancerous entities with similar radiological features, posing a challenge for definitive diagnosis. This review synthesizes current knowledge on the MRI phenotypes of both common and rare benign prostate conditions that may be mistaken for malignancy. The narrative encompasses anatomical variants, other neoplastic processes, inflammatory conditions, and alterations secondary to medical interventions. Furthermore, this review underscores the critical role of MRI quality in diagnostic accuracy and explores the emerging contributions of artificial intelligence in enhancing image interpretation.

Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience: Transformative Synergies in Brain Research and Clinical Applications

The convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and neuroscience is redefining our understanding of the brain, unlocking new possibilities in research, diagnosis, and therapy. This review explores how AI's cutting-edge algorithms-ranging from deep learning to neuromorphic computing-are revolutionizing neuroscience by enabling the analysis of complex neural datasets, from neuroimaging and electrophysiology to genomic profiling. These advancements are transforming the early detection of neurological disorders, enhancing brain-computer interfaces, and driving personalized medicine, paving the way for more precise and adaptive treatments. Beyond applications, neuroscience itself has inspired AI innovations, with neural architectures and brain-like processes shaping advances in learning algorithms and explainable models. This bidirectional exchange has fueled breakthroughs such as dynamic connectivity mapping, real-time neural decoding, and closed-loop brain-computer systems that adaptively respond to neural states. However, challenges persist, including issues of data integration, ethical considerations, and the "black-box" nature of many AI systems, underscoring the need for transparent, equitable, and interdisciplinary approaches. By synthesizing the latest breakthroughs and identifying future opportunities, this review charts a path forward for the integration of AI and neuroscience. From harnessing multimodal data to enabling cognitive augmentation, the fusion of these fields is not just transforming brain science, it is reimagining human potential. This partnership promises a future where the mysteries of the brain are unlocked, offering unprecedented advancements in healthcare, technology, and beyond.

Strategies for improving image quality in prostate MRI

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) stands as the cornerstone in diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa), offering superior detection capabilities while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. Despite its critical role, global disparities in MRI diagnostic performance persist, stemming from variations in image quality and radiologist expertise. This manuscript reviews the challenges and strategies for enhancing image quality in prostate MRI, spanning patient preparation, MRI unit optimization, and radiology team engagement. Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) processes are pivotal, emphasizing standardized protocols, meticulous patient evaluation, MRI unit workflow, and radiology team performance. Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) advancements offer promising avenues for improving image quality and reducing acquisition times. The Prostate-Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system emerges as a valuable tool for assessing MRI image quality. A comprehensive approach addressing technical, procedural, and interpretative aspects is essential to ensure consistent and reliable prostate MRI outcomes.

PI-QUAL version 2 image quality categorisation and inter-reader agreement compared to version 1

OBJECTIVES

Prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) was developed to standardise the evaluation of prostate MRI quality and has recently been updated to version 2. This study aims to assess inter-reader agreement for PI-QUAL v1 and v2 scores and investigates changes in MRI quality score categories.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study retrospectively analysed 350 multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) scans. Two expert uroradiologists independently assessed mpMRI quality using PI-QUAL v1 and v2 guidelines. Biparametric MRI (bpMRI) categorisation based on PI-QUAL v2 included only T2WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) results. Inter-reader agreement was determined using percentage agreement and kappa, and categorisation comparisons were made using the chi-square test.

RESULTS

Substantial inter-reader agreement was observed for the overall PI-QUAL v1 score (κ = 0.64) and moderate agreement for v2 mpMRI (κ = 0.54) and v2 bpMRI scores (κ = 0.57). Inter-reader agreements on individual sequences were similar between v1 and v2 (kappa for individual sequences: T2WI, 0.46 and 0.49; DWI, 0.66 and 0.70; DCE, 0.71 and 0.61). Quality levels shifted from predominantly "optimal" in v1 (65%) down to "acceptable" using v2 (55%); p < 0.001. The addition of DCE increased the proportion of cases with at least "adequate" quality at mpMRI (64%) compared to bpMRI (30%); p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

This study shows consistent inter-reader agreement between PI-QUAL v1 and v2, encompassing overall and individual sequence categorisation. A notable shift from "optimal" to "acceptable" quality was demonstrated when moving from v1 to v2, with DCE tending improving quality from "inadequate" (bpMRI) to "acceptable" (mpMRI).

KEY POINTS

Question What are the agreement levels of image quality of prostate MRI by using PI-QUAL v1 and v2? Findings Inter-reader agreement based on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is comparable. Dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE) enables an overall shift from inadequate quality (at bpMRI) to acceptable quality (mpMRI). Clinical relevance The inter-reader agreement on PI-QUAL v1 and v2 is equivalent. PI-QUAL v2 assesses prostate bpMRI as well as mpMRI quality. Transitioning from inadequate to acceptable between v2-bpMRI and v2-mpMRI highlights the role of DCE as an "image quality safety net."

PI-QUAL version 2: an update of a standardised scoring system for the assessment of image quality of prostate MRI

Multiparametric MRI is the optimal primary investigation when prostate cancer is suspected, and its ability to rule in and rule out clinically significant disease relies on high-quality anatomical and functional images. Avenues for achieving consistent high-quality acquisitions include meticulous patient preparation, scanner setup, optimised pulse sequences, personnel training, and artificial intelligence systems. The impact of these interventions on the final images needs to be quantified. The prostate imaging quality (PI-QUAL) scoring system was the first standardised quantification method that demonstrated the potential for clinical benefit by relating image quality to cancer detection ability by MRI. We present the updated version of PI-QUAL (PI-QUAL v2) which applies to prostate MRI performed with or without intravenous contrast medium using a simplified 3-point scale focused on critical technical and qualitative image parameters. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: High image quality is crucial for prostate MRI, and the updated version of the PI-QUAL score (PI-QUAL v2) aims to address the limitations of version 1. It is now applicable to both multiparametric MRI and MRI without intravenous contrast medium. KEY POINTS: High-quality images are essential for prostate cancer diagnosis and management using MRI. PI-QUAL v2 simplifies image assessment and expands its applicability to prostate MRI without contrast medium. PI-QUAL v2 focuses on critical technical and qualitative image parameters and emphasises T2-WI and DWI.

Impact of prostate MRI image quality on diagnostic performance for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa)

OBJECTIVES

With the widespread clinical application of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), there has been an increasing demand for lesion detection and accurate diagnosis in prostate MR, which relies heavily on satisfactory image quality. Focusing on the primary sequences involved in Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), this study have evaluated common quality issues in clinical practice (such as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), artifacts, boundaries, and enhancement). The aim of the study was to determine the impact of image quality on clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) detection, positive predictive value (PPV) and radiologist's diagnosis in different sequences and prostate zones.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 306 patients who underwent prostate MRI with definitive pathological reports from February 2021 to December 2022. All histopathological specimens were evaluated according to the recommendations of the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP). An ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2 was considered as csPCa. Three radiologists from different centers respectively performed a binary classification assessment of image quality in the following ten aspects: (1) T2WI in the axial plane: SNR, prostate boundary conditions, the presence of artifacts; (2) T2WI in the sagittal or coronal plane: prostate boundary conditions; (3) DWI: SNR, delineation between the peripheral and transition zone, the presence of artifacts, the matching of DWI and T2WI images; (4) DCE: the evaluation of obturator artery enhancement, the evaluation of dynamic contrast enhancement. Fleiss' Kappa was used to determine the inter-reader agreement. Wilson's 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was used to calculate PPV. Chi-square test was used to calculate statistical significance. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

High-quality images had a higher csPCa detection rate (56.5% to 64.3%) in axial T2WI, DWI, and DCE, with significant statistical differences in SNR in axial T2WI (p 0.002), the presence of artifacts in axial T2WI (p 0.044), the presence of artifacts in DWI (p < 0.001), and the matching of DWI and T2WI images (p < 0.001). High-quality images had a higher PPV (72.5% to 78.8%) and showed significant statistical significance in axial T2WI, DWI, and DCE. Additionally, we found that PI-RADS 3 (24.0% to 52.9%) contained more low-quality images compared to PI-RADS 4-5 (20.6% to 39.3%), with significant statistical differences in the prostate boundary conditions in axial T2WI (p 0.048) and the presence of artifacts in DWI (p 0.001). Regarding the relationship between csPCa detection and image quality in different prostate zones, this study found that significant statistical differences were only observed between high- (63.5% to 75.7%) and low-quality (30.0% to 50.0%) images in the peripheral zone (PZ).

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI quality may have an impact on the diagnostic performance. The poorer image quality is associated with lower csPCa detection rates and PPV, which can lead to an increase in radiologist's ambiguous diagnosis (PI-RADS 3), especially for the lesions located at PZ.

Recent trends in AI applications for pelvic MRI: a comprehensive review

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an essential tool for evaluating pelvic disorders affecting the prostate, bladder, uterus, ovaries, and/or rectum. Since the diagnostic pathway of pelvic MRI can involve various complex procedures depending on the affected organ, the Reporting and Data System (RADS) is used to standardize image acquisition and interpretation. Artificial intelligence (AI), which encompasses machine learning and deep learning algorithms, has been integrated into both pelvic MRI and the RADS, particularly for prostate MRI. This review outlines recent developments in the use of AI in various stages of the pelvic MRI diagnostic pathway, including image acquisition, image reconstruction, organ and lesion segmentation, lesion detection and classification, and risk stratification, with special emphasis on recent trends in multi-center studies, which can help to improve the generalizability of AI.

Deep learning-based image quality assessment: impact on detection accuracy of prostate cancer extraprostatic extension on MRI

OBJECTIVE

To assess impact of image quality on prostate cancer extraprostatic extension (EPE) detection on MRI using a deep learning-based AI algorithm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, single institution study included patients who were imaged with mpMRI and subsequently underwent radical prostatectomy from June 2007 to August 2022. One genitourinary radiologist prospectively evaluated each patient using the NCI EPE grading system. Each T2WI was classified as low- or high-quality by a previously developed AI algorithm. Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare EPE detection metrics between low- and high-quality images. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to assess the predictive value of image quality for pathological EPE.

RESULTS

A total of 773 consecutive patients (median age 61 [IQR 56-67] years) were evaluated. At radical prostatectomy, 23% (180/773) of patients had EPE at pathology, and 41% (131/318) of positive EPE calls on mpMRI were confirmed to have EPE. The AI algorithm classified 36% (280/773) of T2WIs as low-quality and 64% (493/773) as high-quality. For EPE grade ≥ 1, high-quality T2WI significantly improved specificity for EPE detection (72% [95% CI 67-76%] vs. 63% [95% CI 56-69%], P = 0.03), but did not significantly affect sensitivity (72% [95% CI 62-80%] vs. 75% [95% CI 63-85%]), positive predictive value (44% [95% CI 39-49%] vs. 38% [95% CI 32-43%]), or negative predictive value (89% [95% CI 86-92%] vs. 89% [95% CI 85-93%]). Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for EPE grades ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 did not show significant differences attributable to imaging quality. For NCI EPE grade 1, high-quality images (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.54-5.86; P < 0.001) demonstrated a stronger association with pathologic EPE than low-quality images (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.63-4.24; P = 0.24).

CONCLUSION

Our study successfully employed a deep learning-based AI algorithm to classify image quality of prostate MRI and demonstrated that better quality T2WI was associated with more accurate prediction of EPE at final pathology.

What the urologist needs to know before radical prostatectomy: MRI effective support to pre-surgery planning

BACKGROUND

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is recommended in case of localized or locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa), but it can lead to side effects, including urinary incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is recommended for PCa diagnosis and staging, but it can also improve preoperative risk-stratification.

PURPOSE

This nonsystematic review aims to provide an overview on factors involved in RP side effects, highlighting anatomical and pathological aspects that could be included in a structured report.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Considering UI evaluation, MR can investigate membranous urethra length (MUL), prostate volume, the urethral sphincter complex, and the presence of prostate median lobe. Longer MUL measurement based on MRI is linked to a higher likelihood of achieving continence restoration. For ED assessment, MRI and diffusion tensor imaging identify the neurovascular bundle and they can aid in surgery planning. Finally, MRI can precisely describe extra-prostatic extension, prostate apex characteristics and lymph-node involvement, providing valuable preoperative information for PCa treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Anatomical principals structures involved in RP side effects can be assessed with MR. A standardized MR report detailing these structures could assist urologists in planning optimal and tailored surgical techniques, reducing complications, and improving patients' care.

Picture Perfect: The Status of Image Quality in Prostate MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Image quality is a fundamental prerequisite for the ability to detect clinically significant disease. In this critical review, we separate the issue of image quality into quality improvement and quality assessment. Beginning with the evolution of technical recommendations for scan acquisition, we investigate the role of patient preparation, scanner factors, and more advanced sequences, including those featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI), in determining image quality. As means of quality appraisal, the published literature on scoring systems (including the Prostate Imaging Quality score), is evaluated. Finally, the application of AI and teaching courses as ways to facilitate quality assessment are discussed, encouraging the implementation of future image quality initiatives along the PCa diagnostic and monitoring pathway. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.

Deep Learning-Based T2-Weighted MR Image Quality Assessment and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection Rates

BACKGROUND

Image quality evaluation of prostate MRI is important for successful implementation of MRI into localized prostate cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE

To examine the impact of image quality on prostate cancer detection using an in-house previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

SUBJECTS

615 consecutive patients (median age 67 [interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71] years) with elevated serum PSA (median PSA 6.6 [IQR: 4.6-9.8] ng/mL) prior to prostate biopsy.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

3.0T/T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo MRI, high b-value echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging, and gradient recalled echo dynamic contrast-enhanced.

ASSESSMENTS

Scans were prospectively evaluated during clinical readout using PI-RADSv2.1 by one genitourinary radiologist with 17 years of experience. For each patient, T2-weighted images (T2WIs) were classified as high-quality or low-quality based on evaluation of both general distortions (eg, motion, distortion, noise, and aliasing) and perceptual distortions (eg, obscured delineation of prostatic capsule, prostatic zones, and excess rectal gas) by a previously developed in-house AI algorithm. Patients with PI-RADS category 1 underwent 12-core ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy while those with PI-RADS category 2-5 underwent combined systematic and targeted biopsies. Patient-level cancer detection rates (CDRs) were calculated for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2) by each biopsy method and compared between high- and low-quality images in each PI-RADS category.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Fisher's exact test. Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

385 (63%) T2WIs were classified as high-quality and 230 (37%) as low-quality by AI. Targeted biopsy with high-quality T2WIs resulted in significantly higher clinically significant CDR than low-quality images for PI-RADS category 4 lesions (52% [95% CI: 43-61] vs. 32% [95% CI: 22-42]). For combined biopsy, there was no significant difference in patient-level CDRs for PI-RADS 4 between high- and low-quality T2WIs (56% [95% CI: 47-64] vs. 44% [95% CI: 34-55]; P = 0.09).

DATA CONCLUSION

Higher quality T2WIs were associated with better targeted biopsy clinically significant cancer detection performance for PI-RADS 4 lesions. Combined biopsy might be needed when T2WI is lower quality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Clinical efficacy of different androgen deprivation therapies for prostate cancer and evaluation based on dynamic-contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging

Objective

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of different androgen deprivation therapies for prostate cancer (PCa) based on dynamic-contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI).

Methods

104 patients with PCa were studied, all of whom were treated with androgen deprivation therapy. The patients were divided into a continuous group (continuous androgen deprivation therapy) and an intermittent group (intermittent androgen deprivation therapy) by random number table method, 52 cases/group. The therapeutic effect and DCE-MRI indices were compared and the relationship between DCE-MRI indices and clinical efficacy and the evaluation value of therapeutic efficacy were analyzed.

Results

The objective response rate (ORR) of the intermittent group was higher than that of the continuous group (p < 0.05), and there was no significant difference in disease control rate (DCR) between the two groups (p > 0.05). After treatment, volume transfer coefficient (Ktrans), reverse transfer constant (Kep), volume fraction (Ve), blood volume (BV), and blood flow (BF) in both groups were lowered, and those in the intermittent group were lower than the continuous group (p < 0.05). Ktrans, Kep, Ve, BF, and BV in the ORR group were lower than those in the non-ORR group (p < 0.05). Ktrans, Kep, Ve, BF, and BV were correlated with the therapeutic effect of PCa (p < 0.05). The AUC value of the combined detection of DCE-MRI indices in evaluating the therapeutic effect of PCa was greater than that of each index alone (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Compared with continuous androgen deprivation therapy, intermittent androgen deprivation therapy has better clinical efficacy in the treatment of PCa, and DCE-MRI indices are related to the treatment efficacy of PCa and have an evaluation value.

Deep Learning-Based Interpretable AI for Prostate T2W MRI Quality Evaluation

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Prostate MRI quality is essential in guiding prostate biopsies. However, assessment of MRI quality is subjective with variation. Quality degradation sources exert varying impacts based on the sequence under consideration, such as T2W versus DWI. As a result, employing sequence-specific techniques for quality assessment could yield more advantageous outcomes. This study aims to develop an AI tool that offers a more consistent evaluation of T2W prostate MRI quality, efficiently identifying suboptimal scans while minimizing user bias.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 1046 patients from three cohorts (ProstateX [n = 347], All-comer in-house [n = 602], enriched bad-quality MRI in-house [n = 97]) scanned between January 2011 and May 2022. An expert reader assigned T2W MRIs a quality score. A train-validation-test split of 70:15:15 was applied, ensuring equal distribution of MRI scanners and protocols across all partitions. T2W quality AI classification model was based on 3D DenseNet121 architecture using MONAI framework. In addition to multiclassification, binary classification was utilized (Classes 0/1 vs. 2). A score of 0 was given to scans considered non-diagnostic or unusable, a score of 1 was given to those with acceptable diagnostic quality with some usability but with some quality distortions present, and a score of 2 was given to those considered optimal diagnostic quality and usability. Partial occlusion sensitivity maps were generated for anatomical correlation. Three body radiologists assessed reproducibility within a subgroup of 60 test cases using weighted Cohen Kappa.

RESULTS

The best validation multiclass accuracy of 77.1% (121/157) was achieved during training. In the test dataset, multiclassification accuracy was 73.9% (116/157), whereas binary accuracy was 84.7% (133/157). Sub-class sensitivity for binary quality distortion classification for class 0 was 100% (18/18), and sub-class specificity for T2W classification of absence/minimal quality distortions for class 2 was 90.5% (95/105). All three readers showed moderate to substantial agreement with ground truth (R1-R3 κ = 0.588, κ = 0.649, κ = 0.487, respectively), moderate to substantial agreement with each other (R1-R2 κ = 0.599, R1-R3 κ = 0.612, R2-R3 κ = 0.685), fair to moderate agreement with AI (R1-R3 κ = 0.445, κ = 0.410, κ = 0.292, respectively). AI showed substantial agreement with ground truth (κ = 0.704). 3D quality heatmap evaluation revealed that the most critical non-diagnostic quality imaging features from an AI perspective related to obscuration of the rectoprostatic space (94.4%, 17/18).

CONCLUSION

The 3D AI model can assess T2W prostate MRI quality with moderate accuracy and translate whole sequence-level classification labels into 3D voxel-level quality heatmaps for interpretation. Image quality has a significant downstream impact on ruling out clinically significant cancers. AI may be able to help with reproducible identification of MRI sequences requiring re-acquisition with explainability.

Machine learning based prediction of image quality in prostate MRI using rapid localizer images

Purpose

Diagnostic performance of prostate MRI depends on high-quality imaging. Prostate MRI quality is inversely proportional to the amount of rectal gas and distention. Early detection of poor-quality MRI may enable intervention to remove gas or exam rescheduling, saving time. We developed a machine learning based quality prediction of yet-to-be acquired MRI images solely based on MRI rapid localizer sequence, which can be acquired in a few seconds.

Approach

The dataset consists of 213 (147 for training and 64 for testing) prostate sagittal T2-weighted (T2W) MRI localizer images and rectal content, manually labeled by an expert radiologist. Each MRI localizer contains seven two-dimensional (2D) slices of the patient, accompanied by manual segmentations of rectum for each slice. Cascaded and end-to-end deep learning models were used to predict the quality of yet-to-be T2W, DWI, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) MRI images. Predictions were compared to quality scores determined by the experts using area under the receiver operator characteristic curve and intra-class correlation coefficient.

Results

In the test set of 64 patients, optimal versus suboptimal exams occurred in 95.3% (61/64) versus 4.7% (3/64) for T2W, 90.6% (58/64) versus 9.4% (6/64) for DWI, and 89.1% (57/64) versus 10.9% (7/64) for ADC. The best performing segmentation model was 2D U-Net with ResNet-34 encoder and ImageNet weights. The best performing classifier was the radiomics based classifier.

Conclusions

A radiomics based classifier applied to localizer images achieves accurate diagnosis of subsequent image quality for T2W, DWI, and ADC prostate MRI sequences.

Update on Optimization of Prostate MR Imaging Technique and Image Quality

Prostate MR imaging quality has improved dramatically over recent times, driven by advances in hardware, software, and improved functional imaging techniques. MRI now plays a key role in prostate cancer diagnostic work-up, but outcomes of the MRI-directed pathway are heavily dependent on image quality and optimization. MR sequences can be affected by patient-related degradations relating to motion and susceptibility artifacts which may enable only partial mitigation. In this Review, we explore issues relating to prostate MRI acquisition and interpretation, mitigation strategies at a patient and scanner level, PI-QUAL reporting, and future directions in image quality, including artificial intelligence solutions.

Design of a magnetic resonance imaging-based screening program for early diagnosis of prostate cancer: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial-Prostate Cancer Secondary Screening in Sapienza (PROSA)

OBJECTIVES

The main objective is to propose an MRI-based screening protocol, investigating the role of MRI without the injection of contrast media (bi-parametric MRI, bpMRI) as a secondary prevention test for prostate cancer (PCa) early diagnosis, comparing MRI with the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. For this reason, preliminary results of Prostate Cancer Secondary Screening in Sapienza (PROSA) are presented, to investigate the efficiency of an MRI-based screening protocol. PROSA is a prospective, randomized, single-center study. To date, 351 men have been enrolled and blindly randomized into two different arms: (A) Men underwent a bpMRI regardless of their PSA values (175); (B) Men followed as per clinical practice: those with increased PSA (61) were referred to bpMRI, while those with normal PSA (112) were not. Men who screened positive on MRI were directed to MR-directed targeted biopsy. On arm A, 4 clinically significant PCa have been detected, while none was found on arm B (p = 0.046). To evaluate the efficiency of the screening protocol, we calculated the experimental event rate (EER, 3.6%), control event rate (CER, 1.2%.), absolute risk reduction (ARR, 2.5%), and number needed to treat (NNT, 40.3). PROSA represents an interesting experience in the field of imaging-based PCa screening. The preliminary data from this trial highlight the promising role of non-contrast MRI as a screening tool for early detection of PCa. Further data will finally validate the most appropriate screening program.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

PROSA depicts an interesting experience in the field of research focused on imaging-based prostate cancer screening. Its preliminary data highlight the promising role of non-contrast MRI as a screening tool for early detection of PCa.

KEY POINTS

• Promotion of an MRI-based screening protocol, investigating the role of non-contrast MRI as a secondary prevention test for prostate cancer early diagnosis, comparing MRI with PSA test. • Prostate Cancer Secondary Screening in Sapienza (PROSA) represents an interesting experience in the field of research focused on imaging-based prostate cancer screening; its preliminary results indicate that it is possible to use non-contrast MRI as a screening tool for early detection of PCa. • This new approach to PCa screening could facilitate the early diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer while reducing the number of unnecessary prostate biopsies and the detection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer.

The role of AI in prostate MRI quality and interpretation: Opportunities and challenges

Prostate MRI plays an important role in imaging the prostate gland and surrounding tissues, particularly in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. With the widespread adoption of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in recent years, the concerns surrounding the variability of imaging quality have garnered increased attention. Several factors contribute to the inconsistency of image quality, such as acquisition parameters, scanner differences and interobserver variabilities. While efforts have been made to standardize image acquisition and interpretation via the development of systems, such as PI-RADS and PI-QUAL, the scoring systems still depend on the subjective experience and acumen of humans. Artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used in many applications, including medical imaging, due to its ability to automate tasks and lower human error rates. These advantages have the potential to standardize the tasks of image interpretation and quality control of prostate MRI. Despite its potential, thorough validation is required before the implementation of AI in clinical practice. In this article, we explore the opportunities and challenges of AI, with a focus on the interpretation and quality of prostate MRI.

Radiomics based automated quality assessment for T2W prostate MR images

PURPOSE

The guidelines for prostate cancer recommend the use of MRI in the prostate cancer pathway. Due to the variability in prostate MR image quality, the reliability of this technique in the detection of prostate cancer is highly variable in clinical practice. This leads to the need for an objective and automated assessment of image quality to ensure an adequate acquisition and hereby to improve the reliability of MRI. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility of Blind/referenceless image spatial quality evaluator (Brisque) and radiomics in automated image quality assessment of T2-weighted (T2W) images.

METHOD

Anonymized axial T2W images from 140 patients were scored for quality using a five-point Likert scale (low, suboptimal, acceptable, good, very good quality) in consensus by two readers. Images were dichotomized into clinically acceptable (very good, good and acceptable quality images) and clinically unacceptable (low and suboptimal quality images) in order to train and verify the model. Radiomics and Brisque features were extracted from a central cuboid volume including the prostate. A reduced feature set was used to fit a Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) model to predict image quality. Two hundred times repeated 5-fold cross-validation was used to train the model and test performance by assessing the classification accuracy, the discrimination accuracy as receiver operating curve - area under curve (ROC-AUC), and by generating confusion matrices.

RESULTS

Thirty-four images were classified as clinically unacceptable and 106 were classified as clinically acceptable. The accuracy of the independent test set (mean ± standard deviation) was 85.4 ± 5.5%. The ROC-AUC was 0.856 (0.851 - 0.861) (mean; 95% confidence interval).

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomics AI can automatically detect a significant portion of T2W images of suboptimal image quality. This can help improve image quality at the time of acquisition, thus reducing repeat scans and improving diagnostic accuracy.

Low cancer yield in PI-RADS 3 upgraded to 4 by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: is it time to reconsider scoring categorization?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate MRI diagnostic performance in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in peripheral-zone PI-RADS 4 lesions, comparing those with clearly restricted diffusion (DWI-score 4), and those with equivocal diffusion pattern (DWI-score 3) and positive dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI.

METHODS

This observational prospective study enrolled 389 men referred to MRI and, if positive (PI-RADS 3 with PSA-density [PSAD] ≥ 0.15 ng/mL/mL, 4 and 5), to MRI-directed biopsy. Lesions with DWI-score 3 and positive DCE were classified as "PI-RADS 3up," instead of PI-RADS 4. Univariable and multivariable analyses were implemented to determine features correlated to csPCa detection.

RESULTS

Prevalence of csPCa was 14.5% and 53.3% in PI-RADS categories 3up and 4, respectively (p < 0.001). MRI showed a sensitivity of 100.0%, specificity 40.9%, PPV 46.5%, NPV 100.0%, and accuracy 60.9% for csPCa detection. Modifying the threshold to consider MRI positive and to indicate biopsy (same as previously described, but PI-RADS 3up only when associated with elevated PSAD), the sensitivity changed to 93.9%, specificity 57.2%, PPV 53.0%, NPV 94.8%, and accuracy 69.7%. Age (p < 0.001), PSAD (p < 0.001), positive DWI (p < 0.001), and PI-RADS score (p = 0.04) resulted in independent predictors of csPCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Most cases of PI-RADS 3up were false-positives, suggesting that upgrading peripheral lesions with DWI-score 3 to PI-RADS 4 because of positive DCE has a detrimental effect on MRI accuracy, decreasing the true prevalence of csPCa in the PI-RADS 4 category. PI-RADS 3up should not be upgraded and directed to biopsy only if associated with increased PSAD.

KEY POINTS

• As per PI-RADS v2.1 recommendations, in case of a peripheral zone lesion with equivocal diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI score 3), but positive dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, the overall PI-RADS score should be upgraded to 4. • The current PI-RADS recommendation of upgrading PI-RADS 3 lesions of the peripheral zone to PI-RADS 4 because of positive DCE decreased clinically significant prostate cancer detection rate in our series. • According to our results, the most accurate threshold for setting indication to prostate biopsy is PI-RADS 3 or PI-RADS 3 with positive DCE both associated with increased PSA density.

Prostate MRI and image Quality: It is time to take stock

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays a vital role in prostate cancer diagnosis and management. With the increase in use of mpMRI, obtaining the best possible quality images has become a priority. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was introduced to standardize and optimize patient preparation, scanning techniques, and interpretation. However, the quality of the MRI sequences depends not only on the hardware/software and scanning parameters, but also on patient-related factors. Common patient-related factors include bowel peristalsis, rectal distension, and patient motion. There is currently no consensus regarding the best approaches to address these issues and improve the quality of mpMRI. New evidence has been accrued since the release of PI-RADS, and this review aims to explore the key strategies which aim to improve prostate MRI quality, such as imaging techniques, patient preparation methods, the new Prostate Imaging Quality (PI-QUAL) criteria, and artificial intelligence on prostate MRI quality.

Quality checkpoints in the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway

Multiparametric MRI of the prostate is now recommended as the initial diagnostic test for men presenting with suspected prostate cancer, with a negative MRI enabling safe avoidance of biopsy and a positive result enabling MRI-directed sampling of lesions. The diagnostic pathway consists of several steps, from initial patient presentation and preparation to performing and interpreting MRI, communicating the imaging findings, outlining the prostate and intra-prostatic target lesions, performing the biopsy and assessing the cores. Each component of this pathway requires experienced clinicians, optimized equipment, good inter-disciplinary communication between specialists, and standardized workflows in order to achieve the expected outcomes. Assessment of quality and mitigation measures are essential for the success of the MRI-directed prostate cancer diagnostic pathway. Quality assurance processes including Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System, template biopsy, and pathology guidelines help to minimize variation and ensure optimization of the diagnostic pathway. Quality control systems including the Prostate Imaging Quality scoring system, patient-level outcomes (such as Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System MRI score assignment and cancer detection rates), multidisciplinary meeting review and audits might also be used to provide consistency of outcomes and ensure that all the benefits of the MRI-directed pathway are achieved.

A Multimodal Ensemble Driven by Multiobjective Optimisation to Predict Overall Survival in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Lung cancer accounts for more deaths worldwide than any other cancer disease. In order to provide patients with the most effective treatment for these aggressive tumours, multimodal learning is emerging as a new and promising field of research that aims to extract complementary information from the data of different modalities for prognostic and predictive purposes. This knowledge could be used to optimise current treatments and maximise their effectiveness. To predict overall survival, in this work, we investigate the use of multimodal learning on the CLARO dataset, which includes CT images and clinical data collected from a cohort of non-small-cell lung cancer patients. Our method allows the identification of the optimal set of classifiers to be included in the ensemble in a late fusion approach. Specifically, after training unimodal models on each modality, it selects the best ensemble by solving a multiobjective optimisation problem that maximises both the recognition performance and the diversity of the predictions. In the ensemble, the labels of each sample are assigned using the majority voting rule. As further validation, we show that the proposed ensemble outperforms the models learning a single modality, obtaining state-of-the-art results on the task at hand.