Back

Deep learning AI and Restriction Spectrum Imaging for patient-level detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI

Song, Y.; Rojo Domingo, M.; Conlin, C. C.; Do, D. D.; Baxter, M. T.; Dornisch, A.; Xu, G.; Bagrodia, A.; Barrett, T.; Harisinghani, M.; Hollenberg, G.; Kamran, S.; Kane, C. J.; Kessler, D. A.; Kuperman, J.; Lee, K.-L.; Liss, M. A.; Margolis, D. J.; Murphy, P. M.; Nakrour, N.; Ngyuen, T.; Osinski, T. L.; Rakow-Penner, R.; Roychowdhury, S.; Shabaik, A. S.; Trecarten, S.; Wehrli, N.; Weinberg, E. P.; Woolen, S.; Dale, A. M.; Seibert, T. M.

2024-11-26 radiology and imaging
10.1101/2024.11.22.24317504 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System (PI-RADS), based on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), is widely used for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, Gleason Grade Group (GG[&ge;]2)). However, its diagnostic accuracy can be impacted by variability in interpretation. Restriction Spectrum Imaging (RSI), an advanced diffusion-weighted technique, offers a standardized, quantitative approach for detecting csPCa, potentially enhancing diagnostic consistency and performing comparably to expert-level assessments. PurposeTo evaluate whether combining maximum RSI-derived restriction scores (RSIrs-max) with deep learning (DL) models can enhance patient-level detection of csPCa compared to using PI-RADS or RSIrs-max alone. Materials and MethodsData from 1,892 patients across seven institutions were analyzed, selected based on MRI results and biopsy-confirmed diagnoses. Two deep learning architectures, 3D-DenseNet and 3D-DenseNet+RSI (incorporating RSIrs-max), were developed and trained using biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and RSI data across two data splits. Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for patient-level csPCa detection, using PI-RADS performance for clinical reference. ResultsNeither RSIrs-max nor the best DL model combined with RSIrs-max significantly outperformed PI-RADS interpretation by expert radiologists. However, when combined with PI-RADS, both approaches significantly improved patient-level csPCa detection, with AUCs of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.74-0.83; P=.005) for combination of RSIrs-max with PI-RADS and 0.81 (95% CI: 0.76-0.85; P<.001) for combination of best DL model with PI-RADS, compared to 0.73 (95% CI: 0.68-0.78) for PI-RADS alone. ConclusionBoth RSIrs-max and DL models demonstrate comparable performance to PI-RADS alone. Integrating either model with PI-RADS significantly enhances patient-level detection of csPCa compared to using PI-RADS alone. Summary StatementRSIrs-max and deep learning models match the performance of expert PI-RADS in patient-level csPCa detection and combining either with PI-RADS yields a significant improvement over PI-RADS alone. Key PointsO_LIIn a study of 1,892 patients from seven institutions undergoing MRI and biopsy for prostate cancer, RSIrs-max and the DL model (AUC, 0.75 (P=.59) and 0.78 (P=.09)) performed comparably to expert-level PI-RADS scores (AUC, 0.73). C_LIO_LIIncluding prostate auto-segmentation improved the DL model (AUC, 0.68 (P=.01) vs 0.72 (P=.60)). C_LIO_LICombining RSIrs-max or the DL model (AUC, 0.79 (P=.005) and 0.81 (P <.001)) with PI-RADS statistically significantly outperformed PI-RADS alone (AUC, 0.73). C_LI

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
35.7%
2
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.8%
3
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
50% of probability mass above
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 26%
6.6%
5
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.5%
6
European Radiology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.2%
7
Modern Pathology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
8
Frontiers in Oncology
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
9
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
10
Human Brain Mapping
295 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
Analytical Biochemistry
26 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.3%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.3%
14
Journal of Medical Imaging
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
15
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
16
Brain Structure and Function
83 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
17
Biology Methods and Protocols
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
18
BMC Cancer
52 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
20
International Journal of Cancer
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Medical Physics
14 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
24
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
26
NeuroImage: Clinical
132 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
27
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%