Detection of prostate cancer in multiparametric MRI using random forest with instance weighting

Part I: prostate cancer detection, artificial intelligence for prostate cancer and how we measure diagnostic performance: a comprehensive review

MRI has firmly established itself as a mainstay for the detection, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. Despite its success, prostate MRI continues to suffer from poor inter-reader variability and a low positive predictive value. The recent emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to potentially improve diagnostic performance shows great potential. Understanding and interpreting the AI landscape as well as ever-increasing research literature, however, is difficult. This is in part due to widely varying study design and reporting techniques. This paper aims to address this need by first outlining the different types of AI used for the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer, next deciphering how data collection methods, statistical analysis metrics (such as ROC and FROC analysis) and end points/outcomes (lesion detection vs. case diagnosis) affect the performance and limit the ability to compare between studies. Finally, this work explores the need for appropriately enriched investigational datasets and proper ground truth, and provides guidance on how to best conduct AI prostate MRI studies. Published in parallel, a clinical study applying this suggested study design was applied to review and report a multiple-reader multiple-case clinical study of 150 bi-parametric prostate MRI studies across nine readers, measuring physician performance both with and without the use of a recently FDA cleared Artificial Intelligence software.1.

Fully Automated Deep Learning Model to Detect Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at MRI

Background Multiparametric MRI can help identify clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) (Gleason score ≥7) but is limited by reader experience and interobserver variability. In contrast, deep learning (DL) produces deterministic outputs. Purpose To develop a DL model to predict the presence of csPCa by using patient-level labels without information about tumor location and to compare its performance with that of radiologists. Materials and Methods Data from patients without known csPCa who underwent MRI from January 2017 to December 2019 at one of multiple sites of a single academic institution were retrospectively reviewed. A convolutional neural network was trained to predict csPCa from T2-weighted images, diffusion-weighted images, apparent diffusion coefficient maps, and T1-weighted contrast-enhanced images. The reference standard was pathologic diagnosis. Radiologist performance was evaluated as follows: Radiology reports were used for the internal test set, and four radiologists' PI-RADS ratings were used for the external (ProstateX) test set. The performance was compared using areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) and the DeLong test. Gradient-weighted class activation maps (Grad-CAMs) were used to show tumor localization. Results Among 5735 examinations in 5215 patients (mean age, 66 years ± 8 [SD]; all male), 1514 examinations (1454 patients) showed csPCa. In the internal test set (400 examinations), the AUC was 0.89 and 0.89 for the DL classifier and radiologists, respectively (P = .88). In the external test set (204 examinations), the AUC was 0.86 and 0.84 for the DL classifier and radiologists, respectively (P = .68). DL classifier plus radiologists had an AUC of 0.89 (P < .001). Grad-CAMs demonstrated activation over the csPCa lesion in 35 of 38 and 56 of 58 true-positive examinations in internal and external test sets, respectively. Conclusion The performance of a DL model was not different from that of radiologists in the detection of csPCa at MRI, and Grad-CAMs localized the tumor. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Johnson and Chandarana in this issue.

Comparison between Three Radiomics Models and Clinical Nomograms for Prediction of Lymph Node Involvement in PCa Patients Combining Clinical and Radiomic Features

PURPOSE

We aim to compare the performance of three different radiomics models (logistic regression (LR), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM)) and clinical nomograms (Briganti, MSKCC, Yale, and Roach) for predicting lymph node involvement (LNI) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The retrospective study includes 95 patients who underwent mp-MRI and radical prostatectomy for PCa with pelvic lymphadenectomy. Imaging data (intensity in T2, DWI, ADC, and PIRADS), clinical data (age and pre-MRI PSA), histological data (Gleason score, TNM staging, histological type, capsule invasion, seminal vesicle invasion, and neurovascular bundle involvement), and clinical nomograms (Yale, Roach, MSKCC, and Briganti) were collected for each patient. Manual segmentation of the index lesions was performed for each patient using an open-source program (3D SLICER). Radiomic features were extracted for each segmentation using the Pyradiomics library for each sequence (T2, DWI, and ADC). The features were then selected and used to train and test three different radiomics models (LR, RF, and SVM) independently using ChatGPT software (v 4o). The coefficient value of each feature was calculated (significant value for coefficient ≥ ±0.5). The predictive performance of the radiomics models and clinical nomograms was assessed using accuracy and area under the curve (AUC) (significant value for p ≤ 0.05). Thus, the diagnostic accuracy between the radiomics and clinical models were compared.

RESULTS

This study identified 343 features per patient (330 radiomics features and 13 clinical features). The most significant features were T2_nodulofirstordervariance and T2_nodulofirstorderkurtosis. The highest predictive performance was achieved by the RF model with DWI (accuracy 86%, AUC 0.89) and ADC (accuracy 89%, AUC 0.67). Clinical nomograms demonstrated satisfactory but lower predictive performance compared to the RF model in the DWI sequences.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the prediction models developed using integrated data (radiomics and semantics), RF shows slightly higher diagnostic accuracy in terms of AUC compared to clinical nomograms in PCa lymph node involvement prediction.

A Narrative Review of the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Breast, Lung, and Prostate Cancer

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been an important topic within radiology. Currently, AI is used clinically to assist with the detection of lesions through detection systems. However, a number of recent studies have demonstrated the increased value of neural networks in radiology. With an increasing number of screening requirements for cancers, this review aims to study the accuracy of the numerous AI models used in the detection and diagnosis of breast, lung, and prostate cancers. This study summarizes pertinent findings from reviewed articles and provides analysis on the relevancy to clinical radiology. This study found that whereas AI is showing continual improvement in radiology, AI alone does not surpass the effectiveness of a radiologist. Additionally, it was found that there are multiple variations on how AI should be integrated with a radiologist's workflow.

Prediction and Mapping of Intraprostatic Tumor Extent with Artificial Intelligence

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) underestimation of prostate cancer extent complicates the definition of focal treatment margins.

Objective

To validate focal treatment margins produced by an artificial intelligence (AI) model.

Design setting and participants

Testing was conducted retrospectively in an independent dataset of 50 consecutive patients who had radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk cancer. An AI deep learning model incorporated multimodal imaging and biopsy data to produce three-dimensional cancer estimation maps and margins. AI margins were compared with conventional MRI regions of interest (ROIs), 10-mm margins around ROIs, and hemigland margins. The AI model also furnished predictions of negative surgical margin probability, which were assessed for accuracy.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Comparing AI with conventional margins, sensitivity was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and negative margin rates using chi-square tests. Predicted versus observed negative margin probability was assessed using linear regression. Clinically significant prostate cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) delineated on whole-mount histopathology served as ground truth.

Results and limitations

The mean sensitivity for cancer-bearing voxels was higher for AI margins (97%) than for conventional ROIs (37%, p < 0.001), 10-mm ROI margins (93%, p = 0.24), and hemigland margins (94%, p < 0.001). For index lesions, AI margins were more often negative (90%) than conventional ROIs (0%, p < 0.001), 10-mm ROI margins (82%, p = 0.24), and hemigland margins (66%, p = 0.004). Predicted and observed negative margin probabilities were strongly correlated (R2 = 0.98, median error = 4%). Limitations include a validation dataset derived from a single institution's prostatectomy population.

Conclusions

The AI model was accurate and effective in an independent test set. This approach could improve and standardize treatment margin definition, potentially reducing cancer recurrence rates. Furthermore, an accurate assessment of negative margin probability could facilitate informed decision-making for patients and physicians.

Patient summary

Artificial intelligence was used to predict the extent of tumors in surgically removed prostate specimens. It predicted tumor margins more accurately than conventional methods.

The Evidence for Using Artificial Intelligence to Enhance Prostate Cancer MR Imaging

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to summarize the current status of artificial intelligence applied to prostate cancer MR imaging.

RECENT FINDINGS

Artificial intelligence has been applied to prostate cancer MR imaging to improve its diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of interpretation. Multiple models have been tested for gland segmentation and volume calculation, automated lesion detection, localization, and characterization, as well as prediction of tumor aggressiveness and tumor recurrence. Studies show, for example, that very robust automated gland segmentation and volume calculations can be achieved and that lesions can be detected and accurately characterized. Although results are promising, we should view these with caution. Most studies included a small sample of patients from a single institution and most models did not undergo proper external validation. More research is needed with larger and well-design studies for the development of reliable artificial intelligence tools.

The current role of MRI for guiding active surveillance in prostate cancer

Active surveillance (AS) is the recommended treatment option for low-risk and favourable intermediate-risk prostate cancer management, preserving oncological and functional outcomes. However, active monitoring using relevant parameters in addition to the usual clinical, biological and pathological considerations is necessary to compensate for initial undergrading of the tumour or to detect early progression without missing the opportunity to provide curative therapy. Indeed, several studies have raised concerns about inadequate biopsy sampling at diagnosis. However, the implementation of baseline MRI and targeted biopsy have led to improved initial stratification of low-risk disease; baseline MRI correlates well with disease characteristics and AS outcomes. The use of follow-up MRI during the surveillance phase also raises the question of the requirement for serial biopsies in the absence of radiological progression and the possibility of using completely MRI-based surveillance, with triggers for biopsies based solely on MRI findings. This concept of a tailored-risk, imaging-based monitoring strategy is aimed at reducing invasive procedures. However, the abandonment of serial biopsies in the absence of MRI progression can probably not yet be recommended in routine practice, as the data from real-life cohorts are heterogeneous and inconclusive. Thus, the evolution towards a routine, fully MRI-guided AS pathway has to be preceded by ensuring quality programme assessment for MRI reading and by demonstrating its safety in prospective trials.

A New Framework for Precise Identification of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma

Prostate cancer, which is also known as prostatic adenocarcinoma, is an unconstrained growth of epithelial cells in the prostate and has become one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. The survival of patients with prostate cancer relies on detection at an early, treatable stage. In this paper, we introduce a new comprehensive framework to precisely differentiate between malignant and benign prostate cancer. This framework proposes a noninvasive computer-aided diagnosis system that integrates two imaging modalities of MR (diffusion-weighted (DW) and T2-weighted (T2W)). For the first time, it utilizes the combination of functional features represented by apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps estimated from DW-MRI for the whole prostate in combination with texture features with its first- and second-order representations, extracted from T2W-MRIs of the whole prostate, and shape features represented by spherical harmonics constructed for the lesion inside the prostate and integrated with PSA screening results. The dataset presented in the paper includes 80 biopsy confirmed patients, with a mean age of 65.7 years (43 benign prostatic hyperplasia, 37 prostatic carcinomas). Experiments were conducted using different well-known machine learning approaches including support vector machines (SVM), random forests (RF), decision trees (DT), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classification models to study the impact of different feature sets that lead to better identification of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Using a leave-one-out cross-validation approach, the diagnostic results obtained using the SVM classification model along with the combined feature set after applying feature selection (88.75% accuracy, 81.08% sensitivity, 95.35% specificity, and 0.8821 AUC) indicated that the system’s performance, after integrating and reducing different types of feature sets, obtained an enhanced diagnostic performance compared with each individual feature set and other machine learning classifiers. In addition, the developed diagnostic system provided consistent diagnostic performance using 10-fold and 5-fold cross-validation approaches, which confirms the reliability, generalization ability, and robustness of the developed system.

Radiomics in prostate cancer: an up-to-date review

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common worldwide diagnosed malignancy in male population. The diagnosis, the identification of aggressive disease, and the post-treatment follow-up needs a more comprehensive and holistic approach. Radiomics is the extraction and interpretation of images phenotypes in a quantitative manner. Radiomics may give an advantage through advancements in imaging modalities and through the potential power of artificial intelligence techniques by translating those features into clinical outcome prediction. This article gives an overview on the current evidence of methodology and reviews the available literature on radiomics in PCa patients, highlighting its potential for personalized treatment and future applications.

Can machine learning-based analysis of multiparameter MRI and clinical parameters improve the performance of clinically significant prostate cancer diagnosis?

Purpose

To establish machine learning(ML) models for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) using multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), texture analysis (TA), dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) quantitative analysis and clinical parameters and to evaluate the stability of these models in internal and temporal validation.

Methods

The dataset of 194 men was split into training (n = 135) and internal validation (n = 59) cohorts, and a temporal dataset (n = 58) was used for evaluation. The lesions with Gleason score ≥ 7 were defined as csPC. Logistic regression (LR), stepwise regression (SR), classical decision tree (cDT), conditional inference tree (CIT), random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models were established by combining mpMRI-TA, DCE-MRI and clinical parameters and validated by internal and temporal validation using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Delong’s method.

Results

Eight variables were determined as important predictors for csPC, with the first three related to texture features derived from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping. RF, LR and SR models yielded larger and more stable area under the ROC curve values (AUCs) than other models. In the temporal validation, the sensitivity was lower than that of the internal validation (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and AUC (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Each machine learning model in this study has good classification ability for csPC. Compared with internal validation, the sensitivity of each machine learning model in temporal validation was reduced, but the specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV and AUCs remained stable at a good level. The RF, LR and SR models have better classification performance in the imaging-based diagnosis of csPC, and ADC texture-related parameters are of the highest importance.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11548-021-02507-w.

Radiomics in prostate cancer imaging for a personalized treatment approach - current aspects of methodology and a systematic review on validated studies

Prostate cancer (PCa) is one of the most frequently diagnosed malignancies of men in the world. Due to a variety of treatment options in different risk groups, proper diagnostic and risk stratification is pivotal in treatment of PCa. The development of precise medical imaging procedures simultaneously to improvements in big data analysis has led to the establishment of radiomics - a computer-based method of extracting and analyzing image features quantitatively. This approach bears the potential to assess and improve PCa detection, tissue characterization and clinical outcome prediction. This article gives an overview on the current aspects of methodology and systematically reviews available literature on radiomics in PCa patients, showing its potential for personalized therapy approaches. The qualitative synthesis includes all imaging modalities and focuses on validated studies, putting forward future directions.

Radiomics in Oncology, Part 2: Thoracic, Genito-Urinary, Breast, Neurological, Hematologic and Musculoskeletal Applications

Simple Summary

This Part II is an overview of the main applications of Radiomics in oncologic imaging with a focus on diagnosis, prognosis prediction and assessment of response to therapy in thoracic, genito-urinary, breast, neurologic, hematologic and musculoskeletal oncology. In this part II we describe the radiomic applications, limitations and future perspectives for each pre-eminent tumor. In the future, Radiomics could have a pivotal role in management of cancer patients as an imaging tool to support clinicians in decision making process. However, further investigations need to obtain some stable results and to standardize radiomic analysis (i.e., image acquisitions, segmentation and model building) in clinical routine.

Abstract

Radiomics has the potential to play a pivotal role in oncological translational imaging, particularly in cancer detection, prognosis prediction and response to therapy evaluation. To date, several studies established Radiomics as a useful tool in oncologic imaging, able to support clinicians in practicing evidence-based medicine, uniquely tailored to each patient and tumor. Mineable data, extracted from medical images could be combined with clinical and survival parameters to develop models useful for the clinicians in cancer patients’ assessment. As such, adding Radiomics to traditional subjective imaging may provide a quantitative and extensive cancer evaluation reflecting histologic architecture. In this Part II, we present an overview of radiomic applications in thoracic, genito-urinary, breast, neurological, hematologic and musculoskeletal oncologic applications.

Artificial Intelligence Based Algorithms for Prostate Cancer Classification and Detection on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative Review

Due to the upfront role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis, a multitude of artificial intelligence (AI) applications have been suggested to aid in the diagnosis and detection of PCa. In this review, we provide an overview of the current field, including studies between 2018 and February 2021, describing AI algorithms for (1) lesion classification and (2) lesion detection for PCa. Our evaluation of 59 included studies showed that most research has been conducted for the task of PCa lesion classification (66%) followed by PCa lesion detection (34%). Studies showed large heterogeneity in cohort sizes, ranging between 18 to 499 patients (median = 162) combined with different approaches for performance validation. Furthermore, 85% of the studies reported on the stand-alone diagnostic accuracy, whereas 15% demonstrated the impact of AI on diagnostic thinking efficacy, indicating limited proof for the clinical utility of PCa AI applications. In order to introduce AI within the clinical workflow of PCa assessment, robustness and generalizability of AI applications need to be further validated utilizing external validation and clinical workflow experiments.

Radiomic and Genomic Machine Learning Method Performance for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Machine learning algorithms have been drawing attention at the joining of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer research. However, due to their algorithmic learning complexity and the variability of their architecture, there is an ongoing need to analyze their performance.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the source of heterogeneity and the performance of machine learning applied to radiomic, genomic, and clinical biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. One research focus of this study was on clearly identifying problems and issues related to the implementation of machine learning in clinical studies.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol, 816 titles were identified from the PubMed, Scopus, and OvidSP databases. Studies that used machine learning to detect prostate cancer and provided performance measures were included in our analysis. The quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-version 2) tool. The hierarchical multivariate model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. To investigate the heterogeneity among studies, I2 statistics were performed along with visual evaluation of coupled forest plots. Due to the internal heterogeneity among machine learning algorithms, subgroup analysis was carried out to investigate the diagnostic capability of machine learning systems in clinical practice.

RESULTS

In the final analysis, 37 studies were included, of which 29 entered the meta-analysis pooling. The analysis of machine learning methods to detect prostate cancer reveals the limited usage of the methods and the lack of standards that hinder the implementation of machine learning in clinical applications.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of machine learning for diagnosis of prostate cancer was considered satisfactory for several studies investigating the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and urine biomarkers; however, given the limitations indicated in our study, further studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning to clinical settings. Recommendations on the use of machine learning techniques were also provided to help researchers to design robust studies to facilitate evidence generation from the use of radiomic and genomic biomarkers.

Dr. Answer AI for Prostate Cancer: Predicting Biochemical Recurrence Following Radical Prostatectomy

OBJECTIVES

To develop a model to predict biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP), using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study collected data from 7,128 patients with prostate cancer (PCa) who received RP at 3 tertiary hospitals. After preprocessing, we used the data of 6,755 cases to generate the BCR prediction model. There were 16 input variables with BCR as the outcome variable. We used a random forest to develop the model. Several sampling techniques were used to address class imbalances.

RESULTS

We achieved good performance using a random forest with synthetic minority oversampling technique (SMOTE) using Tomek links, edited nearest neighbors (ENN), and random oversampling: accuracy = 96.59%, recall = 95.49%, precision = 97.66%, F1 score = 96.59%, and ROC AUC = 98.83%.

CONCLUSION

We developed a BCR prediction model for RP. The Dr. Answer AI project, which was developed based on our BCR prediction model, helps physicians and patients to make treatment decisions in the clinical follow-up process as a clinical decision support system.

Multicenter Multireader Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Attention Mapping System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer With Multiparametric MRI

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in a multicenter dataset the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) detection system with attention mapping compared with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) interpretation in the detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. MRI examinations from five institutions were included in this study and were evaluated by nine readers. In the first round, readers evaluated mpMRI studies using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. After 4 weeks, images were again presented to readers along with the AI-based detection system output. Readers accepted or rejected lesions within four AI-generated attention map boxes. Additional lesions outside of boxes were excluded from detection and categorization. The performances of readers using the mpMRI-only and AI-assisted approaches were compared. RESULTS. The study population included 152 case patients and 84 control patients with 274 pathologically proven cancer lesions. The lesion-based AUC was 74.9% for MRI and 77.5% for AI with no significant difference (p = 0.095). The sensitivity for overall detection of cancer lesions was higher for AI than for mpMRI but did not reach statistical significance (57.4% vs 53.6%, p = 0.073). However, for transition zone lesions, sensitivity was higher for AI than for MRI (61.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.001). Reading time was longer for AI than for MRI (4.66 vs 4.03 minutes, p < 0.001). There was moderate interreader agreement for AI and MRI with no significant difference (58.7% vs 58.5%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSION. Overall sensitivity was only minimally improved by use of the AI system. Significant improvement was achieved, however, in the detection of transition zone lesions with use of the AI system at the cost of a mean of 40 seconds of additional reading time.

Using decision curve analysis to benchmark performance of a magnetic resonance imaging-based deep learning model for prostate cancer risk assessment

OBJECTIVES

To benchmark the performance of a calibrated 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) applied to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for risk assessment of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using decision curve analysis (DCA).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 499 patients who had positive mpMRI (PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3) and MRI-targeted biopsy. The training cohort comprised 449 men, including a calibration set of 50 men. Biopsy decision strategies included using risk estimates from the CNN (original and calibrated), to perform biopsy in men with PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 only, or additionally in men with PI-RADSv2 3 and PSA density (PSAd) ≥ 0.15 ng/ml/ml. Discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness in the unseen test cohort (n = 50) were assessed using C-statistic, calibration plots and DCA, respectively.

RESULTS

The calibrated CNN achieved moderate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow calibration test, p = 0.41) and good discrimination (C = 0.85). DCA revealed consistently higher net benefit and net reduction in biopsies for the calibrated CNN compared with the original CNN, PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 and the combined strategy of PI-RADSv2 and PSAd. Original CNN predictions were severely miscalibrated (p < 0.0001) resulting in net harm compared with a 'biopsy all' patients strategy. At-risk thresholds ≥ 10% using the calibrated CNN and the combined strategy reduced the number of biopsies by an estimated 201 and 55 men, respectively, per 1000 men at risk, without missing csPCa, while original CNN and PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 could not achieve a net reduction in biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

DCA revealed that our calibrated 3D-CNN resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies compared with using PI-RADSv2 alone or in combination with PSAd. CNN calibration is important in achieving clinical utility.

KEY POINTS

• A 3D deep learning model applied to multiparametric MRI may help to prevent unnecessary prostate biopsies in patients eligible for MRI-targeted biopsy. • Owing to miscalibration, original risk estimates by the deep learning model require prior calibration to enable clinical utility. • Decision curve analysis confirmed a net benefit of using our calibrated deep learning model for biopsy decisions compared with alternative strategies, including PI-RADSv2 alone and in combination with prostate-specific antigen density.

Prostate MRI radiomics: A systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment

BACKGROUND

Radiomics have the potential to further increase the value of MRI in prostate cancer management. However, implementation in clinical practice is still far and concerns have been raised regarding the methodological quality of radiomic studies. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the literature to assess the quality of prostate MRI radiomic studies using the radiomics quality score (RQS).

METHODS

Multiple medical literature archives (PubMed, Web of Science and EMBASE) were searched to retrieve original investigations focused on prostate MRI radiomic approaches up to the end of June 2019. Three researchers independently assessed each paper using the RQS. Data from the most experienced researcher were used for descriptive analysis. Inter-rater reproducibility was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) on the total RQS score.

RESULTS

73 studies were included in the analysis. Overall, the average RQS total score was 7.93 ± 5.13 on a maximum of 36 points, with a final average percentage of 23 ± 13%. Among the most critical items, the lack of feature robustness testing strategies and external validation datasets. The ICC resulted poor to moderate, with an average value of 0.57 and 95% Confidence Intervals between 0.44 and 0.69.

CONCLUSIONS

Current studies on prostate MRI radiomics still lack the quality required to allow their introduction in clinical practice.

Applications of Artificial Intelligence to Prostate Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): Current and Emerging Trends

Prostate carcinoma is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a non-invasive tool that can improve prostate lesion detection, classification, and volume quantification. Machine learning (ML), a branch of artificial intelligence, can rapidly and accurately analyze mpMRI images. ML could provide better standardization and consistency in identifying prostate lesions and enhance prostate carcinoma management. This review summarizes ML applications to prostate mpMRI and focuses on prostate organ segmentation, lesion detection and segmentation, and lesion characterization. A literature search was conducted to find studies that have applied ML methods to prostate mpMRI. To date, prostate organ segmentation and volume approximation have been well executed using various ML techniques. Prostate lesion detection and segmentation are much more challenging tasks for ML and were attempted in several studies. They largely remain unsolved problems due to data scarcity and the limitations of current ML algorithms. By contrast, prostate lesion characterization has been successfully completed in several studies because of better data availability. Overall, ML is well situated to become a tool that enhances radiologists' accuracy and speed.

Use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in localized prostate cancer

Introduction: Prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is commonly used for localized disease mainly to detect intraprostatic lesions and to guide biopsies. Despite its documented success in clinical practice, limitations still exist for prostate MRI. In this review, we discuss common clinical uses of prostate MRI, its limitations, and potential solutions for those limitations.Areas covered: Current uses of prostate MRI and challenges discussed. Literature search in PubMed was completed using the keywords "prostate MRI, prostate cancer."Expert opinion: Prostate MRI is a useful method for localization, biopsy, and treatment guidance of prostate cancer. Certain limitations of prostate MRI such as false negatives due to spatial resolution and relatively low repeatability between different radiologists can potentially be solved by investing more on education training and artificial intelligence technology.

Are we at a crossroads or a plateau? Radiomics and machine learning in abdominal oncology imaging

Advances in radiomics and machine learning have driven a technology boom in the automated analysis of radiology images. For the past several years, expectations have been nearly boundless for these new technologies to revolutionize radiology image analysis and interpretation. In this editorial, I compare the expectations with the realities with particular attention to applications in abdominal oncology imaging. I explore whether these technologies will leave us at a crossroads to an exciting future or to a sustained plateau and disillusionment.

Radiomics and radiogenomics of prostate cancer

Radiomics and radiogenomics are attractive research topics in prostate cancer. Radiomics mainly focuses on extraction of quantitative information from medical imaging, whereas radiogenomics aims to correlate these imaging features to genomic data. The purpose of this review is to provide a brief overview summarizing recent progress in the application of radiomics-based approaches in prostate cancer and to discuss the potential role of radiogenomics in prostate cancer.

Artificial intelligence at the intersection of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer

Pathologic grading plays a key role in prostate cancer risk stratification and treatment selection, traditionally assessed from systemic core needle biopsies sampled throughout the prostate gland. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has become a well-established clinical tool for detecting and localizing prostate cancer. However, both pathologic and radiologic assessment suffer from poor reproducibility among readers. Artificial intelligence (AI) methods show promise in aiding the detection and assessment of imaging-based tasks, dependent on the curation of high-quality training sets. This review provides an overview of recent advances in AI applied to mpMRI and digital pathology in prostate cancer which enable advanced characterization of disease through combined radiology-pathology assessment.

Multiparametric MRI and radiomics in prostate cancer: a review

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) is an imaging modality that combines anatomical MR imaging with one or more functional MRI sequences. It has become a versatile tool for detecting and characterising prostate cancer (PCa). The traditional role of mpMRI was confined to PCa staging, but due to the advanced imaging techniques, its role has expanded to various stages in clinical practises including tumour detection, disease monitor during active surveillance and sequential imaging for patient follow-up. Meanwhile, with the growing speed of data generation and the increasing volume of imaging data, it is highly demanded to apply computerised methods to process mpMRI data and extract useful information. Hence quantitative analysis for imaging data using radiomics has become an emerging paradigm. The application of radiomics approaches in prostate cancer has not only enabled automatic localisation of the disease but also provided a non-invasive solution to assess tumour biology (e.g. aggressiveness and the presence of hypoxia). This article reviews mpMRI and its expanding role in PCa detection, staging and patient management. Following that, an overview of prostate radiomics will be provided, with a special focus on its current applications as well as its future directions.

Prostate cancer detection from multi-institution multiparametric MRIs using deep convolutional neural networks

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate aids in early diagnosis of prostate cancer, but is difficult to interpret and subject to interreader variability. Our objective is to generate probability maps, overlaid on original mpMRI images to help radiologists identify where a cancer is suspected as a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD). We optimized the holistically nested edge detection (HED) deep convolutional neural network. Our dataset contains T2, apparent diffusion coefficient, and high b -value images from 186 patients across six institutions worldwide: 92 with an endorectal coil (ERC) and 94 without. Ground-truth was based on tumor segmentations manually drawn by expert radiologists based on histologic evidence of cancer. The training set consisted of 120 patients and the validation set and test set included 19 and 47, respectively. Slice-level probability maps are evaluated at the lesion level of analysis. The best model: HED using 5 × 5 convolutional kernels, batch normalization, and optimized using Adam. This CAD performed significantly better ( p < 0.001 ) in the peripheral zone ( AUC = 0.94 ± 0.01 ) than the transition zone. It outperforms a previous CAD from our group in a head-to-head comparison on the same ERC-only test cases ( AUC = 0.97 ± 0.01 ; p < 0.001 ). Our CAD establishes a state-of-the-art performance for predicting prostate cancer lesions on mpMRIs.

PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images

Grand challenges stimulate advances within the medical imaging research community; within a competitive yet friendly environment, they allow for a direct comparison of algorithms through a well-defined, centralized infrastructure. The tasks of the two-part PROSTATEx Challenges (the PROSTATEx Challenge and the PROSTATEx-2 Challenge) are (1) the computerized classification of clinically significant prostate lesions and (2) the computerized determination of Gleason Grade Group in prostate cancer, both based on multiparametric magnetic resonance images. The challenges incorporate well-vetted cases for training and testing, a centralized performance assessment process to evaluate results, and an established infrastructure for case dissemination, communication, and result submission. In the PROSTATEx Challenge, 32 groups apply their computerized methods (71 methods total) to 208 prostate lesions in the test set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for these methods in the task of differentiating between lesions that are and are not clinically significant ranged from 0.45 to 0.87; statistically significant differences in performance among the top-performing methods, however, are not observed. In the PROSTATEx-2 Challenge, 21 groups apply their computerized methods (43 methods total) to 70 prostate lesions in the test set. When compared with the reference standard, the quadratic-weighted kappa values for these methods in the task of assigning a five-point Gleason Grade Group to each lesion range from - 0.24 to 0.27; superiority to random guessing can be established for only two methods. When approached with a sense of commitment and scientific rigor, challenges foster interest in the designated task and encourage innovation in the field.

Machine learning to predict lung nodule biopsy method using CT image features: A pilot study

Computed tomography (CT)-based screening on lung cancer mortality is poised to make lung nodule management a growing public health problem. Biopsy and pathologic analysis of suspicious nodules is necessary to ensure accurate diagnosis and appropriate intervention. Biopsy techniques vary as do the specialists that perform them and the ways lung nodule patients are referred and triaged. The largest dichotomy is between minimally invasive biopsy (MIB) and surgical biopsy (SB). Cases of unsuccessful MIB preceding a SB can result in considerable delay in definitive care with potentially an adverse impact on prognosis besides potentially avoidable healthcare expenditures. An automated method that predicts the optimal biopsy method for a given lung nodule could save time and healthcare costs by facilitating referral and triage patterns. To our knowledge, no such method has been published. Here, we used CT image features and radiologist-annotated semantic features to predict successful MIB in a way that has not been described before. Using data from the Lung Image Database Consortium image collection (LIDC-IDRI), we trained a logistic regression model to determine whether a MIB or SB procedure was used to diagnose lung cancer in a patient presenting with lung nodules. We found that in successful MIB cases, the nodules were significantly larger and more spiculated. Our model illustrates that using robust machine learning tools on easily accessible semantic and image data can predict whether a patient's nodule is best biopsied by MIB or SB. Pending further validation and optimization, clinicians could use our publicly accessible model to aid clinical decision-making.

Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate if computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) prior to prostate multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) can improve sensitivity and agreement between radiologists.

METHODS

Nine radiologists (three each high, intermediate, low experience) from eight institutions participated. A total of 163 patients with 3-T mpMRI from 4/2012 to 6/2015 were included: 110 cancer patients with prostatectomy after mpMRI, 53 patients with no lesions on mpMRI and negative TRUS-guided biopsy. Readers were blinded to all outcomes and detected lesions per PI-RADSv2 on mpMRI. After 5 weeks, readers re-evaluated patients using CAD to detect lesions. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth with index lesions defined on pathology. Sensitivity, specificity and agreement were calculated per patient, lesion level and zone-peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ).

RESULTS

Index lesion sensitivity was 78.2% for mpMRI alone and 86.3% for CAD-assisted mpMRI (p = 0.013). Sensitivity was comparable for TZ lesions (78.7% vs 78.1%; p = 0.929); CAD improved PZ lesion sensitivity (84% vs 94%; p = 0.003). Improved sensitivity came from lesions scored PI-RADS < 3 as index lesion sensitivity was comparable at PI-RADS ≥ 3 (77.6% vs 78.1%; p = 0.859). Per patient specificity was 57.1% for CAD and 70.4% for mpMRI (p = 0.003). CAD improved agreement between all readers (56.9% vs 71.8%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CAD-assisted mpMRI improved sensitivity and agreement, but decreased specificity, between radiologists of varying experience.

KEY POINTS

• Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) assists clinicians in detecting prostate cancer on MRI. • CAD assistance improves agreement between radiologists in detecting prostate cancer lesions. • However, this CAD system induces more false positives, particularly for less-experienced clinicians and in the transition zone. • CAD assists radiologists in detecting cancer missed on MRI, suggesting a path for improved diagnostic confidence.

Can computer-aided diagnosis assist in the identification of prostate cancer on prostate MRI? a multi-center, multi-reader investigation

For prostate cancer detection on prostate multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) and computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems aim to widely improve standardization across radiologists and centers. Our goal was to evaluate CAD assistance in prostate cancer detection compared with conventional mpMRI interpretation in a diverse dataset acquired from five institutions tested by nine readers of varying experience levels, in total representing 14 globally spread institutions. Index lesion sensitivities of mpMRI-alone were 79% (whole prostate (WP)), 84% (peripheral zone (PZ)), 71% (transition zone (TZ)), similar to CAD at 76% (WP, p=0.39), 77% (PZ, p=0.07), 79% (TZ, p=0.15). Greatest CAD benefit was in TZ for moderately-experienced readers at PI-RADSv2 <3 (84% vs mpMRI-alone 67%, p=0.055). Detection agreement was unchanged but CAD-assisted read times improved (4.6 vs 3.4 minutes, p<0.001). At PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3, CAD improved patient-level specificity (72%) compared to mpMRI-alone (45%, p<0.001). PI-RADSv2 and CAD-assisted mpMRI interpretations have similar sensitivities across multiple sites and readers while CAD has potential to improve specificity and moderately-experienced radiologists' detection of more difficult tumors in the center of the gland. The multi-institutional evidence provided is essential to future prostate MRI and CAD development.

Future Perspectives and Challenges of Prostate MR Imaging

MR imaging is an important part of prostate cancer diagnosis. Variations in quality and skill in general practice mean results are not as impressive as they were in academic centers. This observation provides an impetus to improve the method. Improved quality assurance will likely result in better outcomes. Improved characterization of clinically significant prostate cancer may assist in making MR imaging more useful. Improved methods of registering MR imaging with transrectal ultrasound imaging and robotic arms controlling the biopsy can reduce the impact of inexperienced operators and make the entire system of MR imaging-guided biopsies more robust.