Advertisement

Improving Prostate Cancer Detection With MRI: A Multi-Reader, Multi-Case Study Using Computer-Aided Detection (CAD)

Published:October 07, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.09.009

      Rationale and Objectives

      To evaluate whether addition of a computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) generated MRI series improves detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

      Materials and Methods

      Nine radiologists retrospectively interpreted 150 prostate MRI examinations without and then with an additional random forest-based CAD model-generated MRI series. Characteristics of biopsy negative versus positive (Gleason ≥ 7 adenocarcinoma) groups were compared using the Wilcoxon test for continuous and Pearson's chi-squared test for categorical variables. The diagnostic performance of readers was compared without versus with CAD using MRMC methods to estimate the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Inter-reader agreement was assessed using weighted inter-rater agreement statistics. Analyses were repeated in peripheral and transition zone subgroups.

      Results

      Among 150 men with median age 67 ± 7.4 years, those with clinically significant prostate cancer were older (68 ± 7.6 years vs. 66 ± 7.0 years; p < .02), had smaller prostate volume (43.9 mL vs. 60.6 mL; p < .001), and no difference in prostate specific antigen (PSA) levels (7.8 ng/mL vs. 6.9 ng/mL; p = .08), but higher PSA density (0.17 ng/mL/cc vs. 0.10 ng/mL/cc; p < .001). Inter-rater agreement (IRA) for PI-RADS scores was moderate without CAD and significantly improved to substantial with CAD (IRA = 0.47 vs. 0.65; p < .001). CAD also significantly improved average reader AUC (AUC = 0.72, vs. AUC = 0.67; p = .02).

      Conclusion

      Addition of a random forest method-based, CAD-generated MRI image series improved inter-reader agreement and diagnostic performance for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer, particularly in the transition zone.

      Key Words

      Abbreviations:

      CAD (Computer-aided diagnostic), AUC (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve), PSA (prostate specific antigen), bpRF (boosted parallel random forest), mpMRI (multiparametric MRI), bpMRI (biparametric MRI), PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting & Data System), TRW (T2-weighted), DWI (diffusion-weighted imaging), ADC (apparent diffusion coefficient), MRMC (multi-reader multi-case), PPV (positive predictive value), IQR (interquartile ratio), IRA (inter-rater agreement), BPH (benign prostatic hypertrophy)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ahmed HU
        • El-Shater Bosaily A
        • Brown LC
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017 Feb 25; 389: 815-822
        • Kasivisvanathan V
        • Rannikko AS
        • Borghi M
        • et al.
        MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis.
        N Engl J Med. 2018 May 10; 378: 1767-1777
        • Schoots IG
        • Roobol MJ
        • Nieboer D
        • Bangma CH
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Eur Urol. 2015 Sep; 68: 438-450
        • Westphalen AC
        • McCulloch CE
        • Anaokar JM
        • et al.
        Variability of the positive predictive value of PI-RADS for prostate MRI across 26 Centers: experience of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Prostate Cancer Disease-focused Panel.
        Radiology. 2020 Jul; 296: 76-84
        • Bhayana R
        • O'Shea A
        • Anderson MA
        • et al.
        PI-RADS Versions 2 and 2.1: interobserver agreement and diagnostic performance in peripheral and transition zone lesions among six radiologists.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021 Jul; 217: 141-151
        • Xu L
        • Zhang G
        • Shi B
        • et al.
        Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of prostate cancer.
        Cancer Imaging. 2019 Dec 21; 19: 90
        • Gatti M
        • Faletti R
        • Calleris G
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI).
        Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019 May; 44: 1883-1893
        • Tamada T
        • Kido A
        • Yamamoto A
        • et al.
        Comparison of biparametric and multiparametric MRI for clinically significant prostate cancer detection with PI-RADS Version 2.1.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2021 Jan; 53: 283-291
        • Ullrich T
        • Quentin M
        • Oelers C
        • et al.
        Magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 1.5 versus 3.0T: a prospective comparison study of image quality.
        Eur J Radiol. 2017 May; 90: 192-197
        • Li JL
        • Phillips D
        • Towfighi S
        • Wong A
        • et al.
        Second-opinion reads in prostate MRI: added value of subspecialty interpretation and review at multidisciplinary rounds.
        Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022 Feb; 47: 827-837
        • Salka BR
        • Shankar PR
        • Troost JP
        • et al.
        Effect of Prostate MRI Interpretation Experience on PPV Using PI-RADS Version 2: A 6-Year Assessment Among Eight Fellowship-Trained Radiologists.
        Am. J. Roentgenol. 2022 Mar 23; : 1-8
        • Weinreb JC
        • Barentsz JO
        • Choyke PL
        • et al.
        PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2.
        Eur Urol. 2016 Jan; 69: 16-40
      1. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, et al. PIRADS-V2-1.pdf [Internet]. American College of Radiology: PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system, v2.1. 2019 [cited 2022 Jun 13]. Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/RADS/Pi-RADS/PIRADS-V2-1.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2022

        • Kim N
        • Kim S
        • Prabhu V
        • et al.
        Comparison of prostate imaging and reporting data system V2.0 and V2.1 for evaluation of transition zone lesions: a 5-reader 202-patient analysis.
        J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2022 Apr 8;
        • Sanford T
        • Harmon SA
        • Turkbey EB
        • et al.
        Deep-learning-based artificial intelligence for PI-RADS classification to assist multiparametric prostate MRI interpretation: a development study.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Nov; 52: 1499-1507
        • Mehralivand S
        • Yang D
        • Harmon SA
        • et al.
        A cascaded deep learning–based artificial intelligence algorithm for automated lesion detection and classification on biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging.
        Academic Radiology [Internet]. 2021 Sep 28; ([cited 2021 Oct 4]; Available from:) (Accessed January 5, 2022)
        • Winkel DJ
        • Wetterauer C
        • Matthias MO
        • et al.
        Autonomous detection and classification of PI-RADS lesions in an MRI screening population incorporating multicenter-labeled deep learning and biparametric imaging: proof of concept.
        Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Nov 14; 10: E951
        • Xing P
        • Chen L
        • Yang Q
        • et al.
        Differentiating prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia using whole-lesion histogram and texture analysis of diffusion- and T2-weighted imaging.
        Cancer Imaging. 2021 Sep 27; 21: 54
        • Lay N
        • Tsehay Y
        • Greer MD
        • et al.
        Detection of prostate cancer in multiparametric MRI using random forest with instance weighting.
        J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2017 Apr; 4024506
        • Ulrich EJ
        • Dhaouadi J
        • Schat R
        • et al.
        Comparison of machine learning methods for detection of prostate cancer using bpMRI radiomics features.
        in: Proc Intl Soc Mag Reson Med, London, UK2022
        • Marasini D
        • Quatto P
        • Ripamonti E.
        Assessing the inter-rater agreement for ordinal data through weighted indexes.
        Stat Methods Med Res. 2016 Dec; 25: 2611-2633
        • Falotico R
        • Quatto P.
        On avoiding paradoxes in assessing inter-reader agreement.
        Italian J. Appl. Statistics. 2010; 22: 151-161
        • Obuchowski NA
        • Rockette HE.
        Hypothesis testing of diagnostic accuracy for multiple readers and multiple tests an anova approach with dependent observations.
        Commun Statistics - Simulation and Computation. 1995 Jan 1; 24: 285-308
        • Smith BJ
        • Hillis SL.
        Multi-reader multi-case analysis of variance software for diagnostic performance comparison of imaging modalities.
        Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2020 Feb; 11316113160K
      2. Smith BJ, Hillis SL, Pesce LL. MCMCaov Multi-reader multi-case analysis of variance. [Internet]. Available from: https://github.com/brian-j-smith/MRMCaov. Accessed January 7, 2022.