Update on PI-RADS Version 2.1 Diagnostic Performance Benchmarks for Prostate MRI: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background Prostate MRI for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is standardized by the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), currently in version 2.1. A systematic review and meta-analysis infrastructure with a 12-month update cycle was established to evaluate the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS over time. Purpose To provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy and cancer detection rates (CDRs) of PI-RADS version 2.1 categories for prostate MRI, which is required for further evidence-based patient management. Materials and Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and multiple trial registers (English-language studies published from March 1, 2019, to August 30, 2022) was performed. Studies that reported data on diagnostic accuracy or CDRs of PI-RADS version 2.1 with csPCa as the primary outcome were included. For the meta-analysis, pooled estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and CDRs were derived from extracted data at the lesion level and patient level. Sensitivity and specificity for PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 and PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4 considered as test positive were investigated. In addition to individual PI-RADS categories 1-5, subgroup analyses of subcategories (ie, 2+1, 3+0) were performed. Results A total of 70 studies (11 686 lesions, 13 330 patients) were included. At the patient level, with PI-RADS greater than or equal to 3 considered positive, meta-analysis found a 96% summary sensitivity (95% CI: 95, 98) and 43% specificity (95% CI: 33, 54), with an area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.93). For PI-RADS greater than or equal to 4, meta-analysis found an 89% sensitivity (95% CI: 85, 92) and 66% specificity (95% CI: 58, 74), with an area under the SROC curve of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.92). CDRs were as follows: PI-RADS 1, 6%; PI-RADS 2, 5%; PI-RADS 3, 19%; PI-RADS 4, 54%; and PI-RADS 5, 84%. The CDR was 12% (95% CI: 7, 19) for transition zone 2+1 lesions and 19% (95% CI: 12, 29) for 3+0 lesions (P = .12). Conclusion Estimates of diagnostic accuracy and CDRs for PI-RADS version 2.1 categories are provided for quality benchmarking and to guide further evidence-based patient management. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tammisetti and Jacobs in this issue.

Prediction of upgrade to clinically significant prostate cancer in patients under active surveillance: Performance of a fully automated AI-algorithm for lesion detection and classification.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves the detection of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) subtypes. As cases of active surveillance (AS) increase and tumor progression triggers definitive treatment, we evaluated whether an AI-driven algorithm can detect clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in patients under AS. METHODS: Consecutive patients under AS who received mpMRI (PI-RADSv2.1 protocol) and subsequent MR-guided ultrasound fusion (targeted and extensive systematic) biopsy between 2017 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Diagnostic performance of an automated clinically certified AI-driven algorithm was evaluated on both lesion and patient level regarding the detection of csPCa. RESULTS: Analysis of 56 patients resulted in 93 target lesions. Patient level sensitivity and specificity of the AI algorithm was 92.5%/31% for the detection of ISUP ≥ 1 and 96.4%/25% for the detection of ISUP ≥ 2, respectively. The only case of csPCa missed by the AI harbored only 1/47 Gleason 7a core (systematic biopsy; previous and subsequent biopsies rendered non-csPCa). CONCLUSIONS: AI-augmented lesion detection and PI-RADS scoring is a robust tool to detect progression to csPCa in patients under AS. Integration in the clinical workflow can serve as reassurance for the reader and streamline reporting, hence improve efficiency and diagnostic confidence.

Comparison of data fusion strategies for automated prostate lesion detection using mpMRI correlated with whole mount histology.

BACKGROUND: In this work, we compare input level, feature level and decision level data fusion techniques for automatic detection of clinically significant prostate lesions (csPCa). METHODS: Multiple deep learning CNN architectures were developed using the Unet as the baseline. The CNNs use both multiparametric MRI images (T2W, ADC, and High b-value) and quantitative clinical data (prostate specific antigen (PSA), PSA density (PSAD), prostate gland volume & gross tumor volume (GTV)), and only mp-MRI images (n = 118), as input. In addition, co-registered ground truth data from whole mount histopathology images (n = 22) were used as a test set for evaluation. RESULTS: The CNNs achieved for early/intermediate / late level fusion a precision of 0.41/0.51/0.61, recall value of 0.18/0.22/0.25, an average precision of 0.13 / 0.19 / 0.27, and F scores of 0.55/0.67/ 0.76. Dice Sorensen Coefficient (DSC) was used to evaluate the influence of combining mpMRI with parametric clinical data for the detection of csPCa. We compared the DSC between the predictions of CNN's trained with mpMRI and parametric clinical and the CNN's trained with only mpMRI images as input with the ground truth. We obtained a DSC of data 0.30/0.34/0.36 and 0.26/0.33/0.34 respectively. Additionally, we evaluated the influence of each mpMRI input channel for the task of csPCa detection and obtained a DSC of 0.14 / 0.25 / 0.28. CONCLUSION: The results show that the decision level fusion network performs better for the task of prostate lesion detection. Combining mpMRI data with quantitative clinical data does not show significant differences between these networks (p = 0.26/0.62/0.85). The results show that CNNs trained with all mpMRI data outperform CNNs with less input channels which is consistent with current clinical protocols where the same input is used for PI-RADS lesion scoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered retrospectively at the German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS) under proposal number Nr. 476/14 & 476/19.

A Machine Learning Framework Reduces the Manual Workload for Systematic Reviews of the Diagnostic Performance of Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Prostate magnetic resonance imaging has become the imaging standard for prostate cancer in various clinical settings, with interpretation standardized according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Each year, hundreds of scientific studies that report on the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS are published. To keep up with this ever-increasing evidence base, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential. As systematic reviews are highly resource-intensive, we investigated whether a machine learning framework can reduce the manual workload and speed up the screening process (title and abstract). We used search results from a living systematic review of the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS (1585 studies, of which 482 were potentially eligible after screening). A naïve Bayesian classifier was implemented in an active learning environment for classification of the titles and abstracts. Our outcome variable was the percentage of studies that can be excluded after 95% of relevant studies have been identified by the classifier (work saved over sampling: WSS@95%). In simulation runs of the entire screening process (controlling for classifier initiation and the frequency of classifier updating), we obtained a WSS@95% value of 28% (standard error of the mean ±0.1%). Applied prospectively, our classification framework would translate into a significant reduction in manual screening effort. Patient summary: Systematic reviews of scientific evidence are labor-intensive and take a lot of time. For example, many studies on prostate cancer diagnosis via MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) are published every year. We describe the use of machine learning to reduce the manual workload in screening search results. For a review of MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis, this approach reduced the screening workload by about 28%.