Automated deep-learning system in the assessment of MRI-visible prostate cancer: comparison of advanced zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging and conventional technique.

BACKGROUND: Deep-learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) systems using MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) detection have demonstrated good performance. Nevertheless, DL-CAD systems are vulnerable to high heterogeneities in DWI, which can interfere with DL-CAD assessments and impair performance. This study aims to compare PCa detection of DL-CAD between zoomed-field-of-view echo-planar DWI (z-DWI) and full-field-of-view DWI (f-DWI) and find the risk factors affecting DL-CAD diagnostic efficiency. METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 354 consecutive participants who underwent MRI including T2WI, f-DWI, and z-DWI because of clinically suspected PCa. A DL-CAD was used to compare the performance of f-DWI and z-DWI both on a patient level and lesion level. We used the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics analysis and alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics analysis to compare the performances of DL-CAD using f- DWI and z-DWI. The risk factors affecting the DL-CAD were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: DL-CAD with z-DWI had a significantly better overall accuracy than that with f-DWI both on patient level and lesion level (AUCpatient: 0.89 vs. 0.86; AUClesion: 0.86 vs. 0.76; P < .001). The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of lesions in DWI was an independent risk factor of false positives (odds ratio [OR] = 1.12; P < .001). Rectal susceptibility artifacts, lesion diameter, and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) were independent risk factors of both false positives (ORrectal susceptibility artifact = 5.46; ORdiameter, = 1.12; ORADC = 0.998; all P < .001) and false negatives (ORrectal susceptibility artifact = 3.31; ORdiameter = 0.82; ORADC = 1.007; all P ≤ .03) of DL-CAD. CONCLUSIONS: Z-DWI has potential to improve the detection performance of a prostate MRI based DL-CAD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR, NO. ChiCTR2100041834 . Registered 7 January 2021.

A concurrent, deep learning-based computer-aided detection system for prostate multiparametric MRI: a performance study involving experienced and less-experienced radiologists.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) system on experienced and less-experienced radiologists in reading prostate mpMRI. METHODS: In this retrospective, multi-reader multi-case study, a consecutive set of 184 patients examined between 01/2018 and 08/2019 were enrolled. Ground truth was combined targeted and 12-core systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Four radiologists, two experienced and two less-experienced, evaluated each case twice, once without (DL-CAD-) and once assisted by DL-CAD (DL-CAD+). ROC analysis, sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV were calculated to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) between the two groups (DL-CAD- vs. DL-CAD+). Spearman's correlation coefficients were evaluated to assess the relationship between PI-RADS category and Gleason score (GS). Also, the median reading times were compared for the two reading groups. RESULTS: In total, 172 patients were included in the final analysis. With DL-CAD assistance, the overall AUC of the less-experienced radiologists increased significantly from 0.66 to 0.80 (p = 0.001; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 1) and from 0.68 to 0.80 (p = 0.002; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 2). Experienced radiologists showed an AUC increase from 0.81 to 0.86 (p = 0.146; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 1) and from 0.81 to 0.84 (p = 0.433; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 2). Furthermore, the correlation between PI-RADS category and GS improved significantly in the DL-CAD + group (0.45 vs. 0.57; p = 0.03), while the median reading time was reduced from 157 to 150 s (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: DL-CAD assistance increased the mean detection performance, with the most significant benefit for the less-experienced radiologist; with the help of DL-CAD less-experienced radiologists reached performances comparable to that of experienced radiologists. KEY POINTS: • DL-CAD used as a concurrent reading aid helps radiologists to distinguish between benign and cancerous lesions in prostate MRI. • With the help of DL-CAD, less-experienced radiologists may achieve detection performances comparable to that of experienced radiologists. • DL-CAD assistance increases the correlation between PI-RADS category and cancer grade.

Detection and PI-RADS classification of focal lesions in prostate MRI: Performance comparison between a deep learning-based algorithm (DLA) and radiologists with various levels of experience.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of lesion detection and Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) classification between a deep learning-based algorithm (DLA), clinical reports and radiologists with different levels of experience in prostate MRI. METHODS: This retrospective study included 121 patients who underwent prebiopsy MRI and prostate biopsy. More than five radiologists (Reader groups 1, 2: residents; Readers 3, 4: less-experienced radiologists; Reader 5: expert) independently reviewed biparametric MRI (bpMRI). The DLA results were obtained using bpMRI. The reference standard was based on pathologic reports. The diagnostic performance of the PI-RADS classification of DLA, clinical reports, and radiologists was analyzed using AUROC. Dichotomous analysis (PI-RADS cutoff value ≥ 3 or 4) was performed, and the sensitivities and specificities were compared using McNemar's test. RESULTS: Clinically significant cancer [CSC, Gleason score ≥ 7] was confirmed in 43 patients (35.5%). The AUROC of the DLA (0.828) for diagnosing CSC was significantly higher than that of Reader 1 (AUROC, 0.706; p = 0.011), significantly lower than that of Reader 5 (AUROC, 0.914; p = 0.013), and similar to clinical reports and other readers (p = 0.060-0.661). The sensitivity of DLA (76.7%) was comparable to those of all readers and the clinical reports at a PI-RADS cutoff value ≥ 4. The specificity of the DLA (85.9%) was significantly higher than those of clinical reports and Readers 2-3 and comparable to all others at a PI-RADS cutoff value ≥ 4. CONCLUSIONS: The DLA showed moderate diagnostic performance at a level between those of residents and an expert in detecting and classifying according to PI-RADS. The performance of DLA was similar to that of clinical reports from various radiologists in clinical practice.

A Novel Deep Learning Based Computer-Aided Diagnosis System Improves the Accuracy and Efficiency of Radiologists in Reading Biparametric Magnetic Resonance Images of the Prostate: Results of a Multireader, Multicase Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a deep learning based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) system on radiologists' interpretation accuracy and efficiency in reading biparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected 100 consecutive prostate magnetic resonance imaging cases from a publicly available data set (PROSTATEx Challenge) with and without histopathologically confirmed prostate cancer. Seven board-certified radiologists were tasked to read each case twice in 2 reading blocks (with and without the assistance of a DL-CAD), with a separation between the 2 reading sessions of at least 2 weeks. Reading tasks were to localize and classify lesions according to Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) v2.0 and to assign a radiologist's level of suspicion score (scale from 1-5 in 0.5 increments; 1, benign; 5, malignant). Ground truth was established by consensus readings of 3 experienced radiologists. The detection performance (receiver operating characteristic curves), variability (Fleiss κ), and average reading time without DL-CAD assistance were evaluated. RESULTS: The average accuracy of radiologists in terms of area under the curve in detecting clinically significant cases (PI-RADS ≥4) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.89), whereas the same using DL-CAD was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.94) with an improvement of 4.4% (95% CI, 1.1%-7.7%; P = 0.010). Interreader concordance (in terms of Fleiss κ) increased from 0.22 to 0.36 (P = 0.003). Accuracy of radiologists in detecting cases with PI-RADS ≥3 was improved by 2.9% (P = 0.10). The median reading time in the unaided/aided scenario was reduced by 21% from 103 to 81 seconds (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using a DL-CAD system increased the diagnostic accuracy in detecting highly suspicious prostate lesions and reduced both the interreader variability and the reading time.