Evaluation of a Cascaded Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Prostate Lesion Detection at Biparametric MRI.

Background Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves prostate cancer (PCa) detection compared with systematic biopsy, but its interpretation is prone to interreader variation, which results in performance inconsistency. Artificial intelligence (AI) models can assist in mpMRI interpretation, but large training data sets and extensive model testing are required. Purpose To evaluate a biparametric MRI AI algorithm for intraprostatic lesion detection and segmentation and to compare its performance with radiologist readings and biopsy results. Materials and Methods This secondary analysis of a prospective registry included consecutive patients with suspected or known PCa who underwent mpMRI, US-guided systematic biopsy, or combined systematic and MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy between April 2019 and September 2022. All lesions were prospectively evaluated using Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.1. The lesion- and participant-level performance of a previously developed cascaded deep learning algorithm was compared with histopathologic outcomes and radiologist readings using sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Dice similarity coefficient (DSC). Results A total of 658 male participants (median age, 67 years [IQR, 61-71 years]) with 1029 MRI-visible lesions were included. At histopathologic analysis, 45% (294 of 658) of participants had lesions of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) 2 or higher. The algorithm identified 96% (282 of 294; 95% CI: 94%, 98%) of all participants with clinically significant PCa, whereas the radiologist identified 98% (287 of 294; 95% CI: 96%, 99%; P = .23). The algorithm identified 84% (103 of 122), 96% (152 of 159), 96% (47 of 49), 95% (38 of 40), and 98% (45 of 46) of participants with ISUP GG 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 lesions, respectively. In the lesion-level analysis using radiologist ground truth, the detection sensitivity was 55% (569 of 1029; 95% CI: 52%, 58%), and the PPV was 57% (535 of 934; 95% CI: 54%, 61%). The mean number of false-positive lesions per participant was 0.61 (range, 0-3). The lesion segmentation DSC was 0.29. Conclusion The AI algorithm detected cancer-suspicious lesions on biparametric MRI scans with a performance comparable to that of an experienced radiologist. Moreover, the algorithm reliably predicted clinically significant lesions at histopathologic examination. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03354416 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Automated Detection and Grading of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer at MRI via Cascaded Deep Learning and Random Forest Classification.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Extraprostatic extension (EPE) is well established as a significant predictor of prostate cancer aggression and recurrence. Accurate EPE assessment prior to radical prostatectomy can impact surgical approach. We aimed to utilize a deep learning-based AI workflow for automated EPE grading from prostate T2W MRI, ADC map, and High B DWI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An expert genitourinary radiologist conducted prospective clinical assessments of MRI scans for 634 patients and assigned risk for EPE using a grading technique. The training set and held-out independent test set consisted of 507 patients and 127 patients, respectively. Existing deep-learning AI models for prostate organ and lesion segmentation were leveraged to extract area and distance features for random forest classification models. Model performance was evaluated using balanced accuracy, ROC AUCs for each EPE grade, as well as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to EPE on histopathology. RESULTS: A balanced accuracy score of .390 ± 0.078 was achieved using a lesion detection probability threshold of 0.45 and distance features. Using the test set, ROC AUCs for AI-assigned EPE grades 0-3 were 0.70, 0.65, 0.68, and 0.55 respectively. When using EPE≥ 1 as the threshold for positive EPE, the model achieved a sensitivity of 0.67, specificity of 0.73, and accuracy of 0.72 compared to radiologist sensitivity of 0.81, specificity of 0.62, and accuracy of 0.66 using histopathology as the ground truth. CONCLUSION: Our AI workflow for assigning imaging-based EPE grades achieves an accuracy for predicting histologic EPE approaching that of physicians. This automated workflow has the potential to enhance physician decision-making for assessing the risk of EPE in patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer due to its consistency and automation.

Automated prostate gland segmentation in challenging clinical cases: comparison of three artificial intelligence methods.

OBJECTIVE: Automated methods for prostate segmentation on MRI are typically developed under ideal scanning and anatomical conditions. This study evaluates three different prostate segmentation AI algorithms in a challenging population of patients with prior treatments, variable anatomic characteristics, complex clinical history, or atypical MRI acquisition parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single institution retrospective database was queried for the following conditions at prostate MRI: prior prostate-specific oncologic treatment, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), abdominal perineal resection (APR), hip prosthesis (HP), diversity of prostate volumes (large ≥ 150 cc, small ≤ 25 cc), whole gland tumor burden, magnet strength, noted poor quality, and various scanners (outside/vendors). Final inclusion criteria required availability of axial T2-weighted (T2W) sequence and corresponding prostate organ segmentation from an expert radiologist. Three previously developed algorithms were evaluated: (1) deep learning (DL)-based model, (2) commercially available shape-based model, and (3) federated DL-based model. Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated compared to expert. DSC by model and scan factors were evaluated with Wilcox signed-rank test and linear mixed effects (LMER) model. RESULTS: 683 scans (651 patients) met inclusion criteria (mean prostate volume 60.1 cc [9.05-329 cc]). Overall DSC scores for models 1, 2, and 3 were 0.916 (0.707-0.971), 0.873 (0-0.997), and 0.894 (0.025-0.961), respectively, with DL-based models demonstrating significantly higher performance (p < 0.01). In sub-group analysis by factors, Model 1 outperformed Model 2 (all p < 0.05) and Model 3 (all p < 0.001). Performance of all models was negatively impacted by prostate volume and poor signal quality (p < 0.01). Shape-based factors influenced DL models (p < 0.001) while signal factors influenced all (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Factors affecting anatomical and signal conditions of the prostate gland can adversely impact both DL and non-deep learning-based segmentation models.

PI-RADS Version 2.0 Versus Version 2.1: Comparison of Prostate Cancer Gleason Grade Upgrade and Downgrade Rates From MRI-Targeted Biopsy to Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND. Precise risk stratification through MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion-guided targeted biopsy (TBx) can guide optimal prostate cancer (PCa) management. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare PI-RADS version 2.0 (v2.0) and PI-RADS version 2.1 (v2.1) in terms of the rates of International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group (GG) upgrade and downgrade from TBx to radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS. This study entailed a retrospective post hoc analysis of patients who underwent 3-T prostate MRI at a single institution from May 2015 to March 2023 as part of three prospective clinical trials. Trial participants who underwent MRI followed by MRI/US fusion-guided TBx and RP within a 1-year interval were identified. A single genitourinary radiologist performed clinical interpretations of the MRI examinations using PI-RADS v2.0 from May 2015 to March 2019 and PI-RADS v2.1 from April 2019 to March 2023. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were compared using chi-square tests. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP GG2 or greater. RESULTS. The final analysis included 308 patients (median age, 65 years; median PSA density, 0.16 ng/mL2). The v2.0 group (n = 177) and v2.1 group (n = 131) showed no significant difference in terms of upgrade rate (29% vs 22%, respectively; p = .15), downgrade rate (19% vs 21%, p = .76), clinically significant upgrade rate (14% vs 10%, p = .27), or clinically significant downgrade rate (1% vs 1%, p > .99). The upgrade rate and downgrade rate were also not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups when stratifying by index lesion PI-RADS category or index lesion zone, as well as when assessed only in patients without a prior PCa diagnosis (all p > .01). Among patients with GG2 or GG3 at RP (n = 121 for v2.0; n = 103 for v2.1), the concordance rate between TBx and RP was not significantly different between the v2.0 and v2.1 groups (53% vs 57%, p = .51). CONCLUSION. Upgrade and downgrade rates from TBx to RP were not significantly different between patients whose MRI examinations were clinically interpreted using v2.0 or v2.1. CLINICAL IMPACT. Implementation of the most recent PI-RADS update did not improve the incongruence in PCa grade assessment between TBx and surgery.

Deep Learning-Based Interpretable AI for Prostate T2W MRI Quality Evaluation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Prostate MRI quality is essential in guiding prostate biopsies. However, assessment of MRI quality is subjective with variation. Quality degradation sources exert varying impacts based on the sequence under consideration, such as T2W versus DWI. As a result, employing sequence-specific techniques for quality assessment could yield more advantageous outcomes. This study aims to develop an AI tool that offers a more consistent evaluation of T2W prostate MRI quality, efficiently identifying suboptimal scans while minimizing user bias. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 1046 patients from three cohorts (ProstateX [n = 347], All-comer in-house [n = 602], enriched bad-quality MRI in-house [n = 97]) scanned between January 2011 and May 2022. An expert reader assigned T2W MRIs a quality score. A train-validation-test split of 70:15:15 was applied, ensuring equal distribution of MRI scanners and protocols across all partitions. T2W quality AI classification model was based on 3D DenseNet121 architecture using MONAI framework. In addition to multiclassification, binary classification was utilized (Classes 0/1 vs. 2). A score of 0 was given to scans considered non-diagnostic or unusable, a score of 1 was given to those with acceptable diagnostic quality with some usability but with some quality distortions present, and a score of 2 was given to those considered optimal diagnostic quality and usability. Partial occlusion sensitivity maps were generated for anatomical correlation. Three body radiologists assessed reproducibility within a subgroup of 60 test cases using weighted Cohen Kappa. RESULTS: The best validation multiclass accuracy of 77.1% (121/157) was achieved during training. In the test dataset, multiclassification accuracy was 73.9% (116/157), whereas binary accuracy was 84.7% (133/157). Sub-class sensitivity for binary quality distortion classification for class 0 was 100% (18/18), and sub-class specificity for T2W classification of absence/minimal quality distortions for class 2 was 90.5% (95/105). All three readers showed moderate to substantial agreement with ground truth (R1-R3 κ = 0.588, κ = 0.649, κ = 0.487, respectively), moderate to substantial agreement with each other (R1-R2 κ = 0.599, R1-R3 κ = 0.612, R2-R3 κ = 0.685), fair to moderate agreement with AI (R1-R3 κ = 0.445, κ = 0.410, κ = 0.292, respectively). AI showed substantial agreement with ground truth (κ = 0.704). 3D quality heatmap evaluation revealed that the most critical non-diagnostic quality imaging features from an AI perspective related to obscuration of the rectoprostatic space (94.4%, 17/18). CONCLUSION: The 3D AI model can assess T2W prostate MRI quality with moderate accuracy and translate whole sequence-level classification labels into 3D voxel-level quality heatmaps for interpretation. Image quality has a significant downstream impact on ruling out clinically significant cancers. AI may be able to help with reproducible identification of MRI sequences requiring re-acquisition with explainability.

Deep Learning-Based T2-weighted MR Image Quality Assessment and Its Impact on Prostate Cancer Detection Rates.

BACKGROUND: Image quality evaluation of prostate MRI is important for successful implementation of MRI into localized prostate cancer diagnosis. PURPOSE: To examine the impact of image quality on prostate cancer detection using an in-house previously developed artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. SUBJECTS: 615 consecutive patients (median age 67 [interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71] years) with elevated serum PSA (median PSA 6.6 [IQR: 4.6-9.8] ng/mL) prior to prostate biopsy. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0T/T2-weighted turbo-spin-echo MRI, high b-value echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging, and gradient recalled echo dynamic contrast-enhanced. ASSESSMENTS: Scans were prospectively evaluated during clinical readout using PI-RADSv2.1 by one genitourinary radiologist with 17 years of experience. For each patient, T2-weighted images (T2WIs) were classified as high-quality or low-quality based on evaluation of both general distortions (eg, motion, distortion, noise, and aliasing) and perceptual distortions (eg, obscured delineation of prostatic capsule, prostatic zones, and excess rectal gas) by a previously developed in-house AI algorithm. Patients with PI-RADS category 1 underwent 12-core ultrasound-guided systematic biopsy while those with PI-RADS category 2-5 underwent combined systematic and targeted biopsies. Patient-level cancer detection rates (CDRs) were calculated for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2) by each biopsy method and compared between high- and low-quality images in each PI-RADS category. STATISTICAL TESTS: Fisher's exact test. Bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CI). A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 385 (63%) T2WIs were classified as high-quality and 230 (37%) as low-quality by AI. Targeted biopsy with high-quality T2WIs resulted in significantly higher clinically significant CDR than low-quality images for PI-RADS category 4 lesions (52% [95% CI: 43-61] vs. 32% [95% CI: 22-42]). For combined biopsy, there was no significant difference in patient-level CDRs for PI-RADS 4 between high- and low-quality T2WIs (56% [95% CI: 47-64] vs. 44% [95% CI: 34-55]; P = 0.09). DATA CONCLUSION: Higher quality T2WIs were associated with better targeted biopsy clinically significant cancer detection performance for PI-RADS 4 lesions. Combined biopsy might be needed when T2WI is lower quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.

Evaluation of a Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Post-Radiotherapy Prostate Cancer Local Recurrence Detection Using Biparametric MRI.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a biparametric MRI (bpMRI)-based artificial intelligence (AI) model for the detection of local prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence in patients with radiotherapy history. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included post-radiotherapy patients undergoing multiparametric MRI and subsequent MRI/US fusion-guided and/or systematic biopsy. Histopathology results were used as ground truth. The recurrent cancer detection sensitivity of a bpMRI-based AI model, which was developed on a large dataset to primarily identify lesions in treatment-naïve patients, was compared to a prospective radiologist assessment using the Wald test. Subanalysis was conducted on patients stratified by the treatment modality (external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and brachytherapy) and the prostate volume quartiles. RESULTS: Of the 62 patients included (median age = 70 years; median PSA = 3.51 ng/ml; median prostate volume = 27.55 ml), 56 recurrent PCa foci were identified within 46 patients. The AI model detected 40 lesions in 35 patients. The AI model performance was lower than the prospective radiology interpretation (Rad) on a patient-(AI: 76.1% vs. Rad: 91.3%, p = 0.02) and lesion-level (AI: 71.4% vs. Rad: 87.5%, p = 0.01). The mean number of false positives per patient was 0.35 (range: 0-2). The AI model performance was higher in EBRT group both on patient-level (EBRT: 81.5% [22/27] vs. brachytherapy: 68.4% [13/19]) and lesion-level (EBRT: 79.4% [27/34] vs. brachytherapy: 59.1% [13/22]). In patients with gland volumes >34 ml (n = 25), detection sensitivities were 100% (11/11) and 94.1% (16/17) on patient- and lesion-level, respectively. CONCLUSION: The reported bpMRI-based AI model detected the majority of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Further testing including external validation of this model is warranted prior to clinical implementation.

Comparison of MRI-Based Staging and Pathologic Staging for Predicting Biochemical Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND. Currently most clinical models for predicting biochemical recurrence (BCR) of prostate cancer (PCa) after radical prostatectomy (RP) incorporate staging information from RP specimens, creating a gap in preoperative risk assessment. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to compare the utility of presurgical staging information from MRI and postsurgical staging information from RP pathology in predicting BCR in patients with PCa. METHODS. This retrospective study included 604 patients (median age, 60 years) with PCa who underwent prostate MRI before RP from June 2007 to December 2018. A single genitourinary radiologist assessed MRI examinations for extraprostatic extension (EPE) and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) during clinical interpretations. The utility of EPE and SVI on MRI and RP pathology for BCR prediction was assessed through Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses. Established clinical BCR prediction models, including the University of California San Francisco Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (UCSF-CAPRA) model and the Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment Postsurgical (CAPRA-S) model, were evaluated in a subset of 374 patients with available Gleason grade groups from biopsy and RP pathology; two CAPRA-MRI models (CAPRA-S model with modifications to replace RP pathologic staging features with MRI staging features) were also assessed. RESULTS. Univariable predictors of BCR included EPE on MRI (HR = 3.6), SVI on MRI (HR = 4.4), EPE on RP pathology (HR = 5.0), and SVI on RP pathology (HR = 4.6) (all p < .001). Three-year BCR-free survival (RFS) rates for patients without versus with EPE were 84% versus 59% for MRI and 89% versus 58% for RP pathology, and 3-year RFS rates for patients without versus with SVI were 82% versus 50% for MRI and 83% versus 54% for RP histology (all p < .001). For patients with T3 disease on RP pathology, 3-year RFS rates were 67% and 41% for patients without and with T3 disease on MRI. AUCs of CAPRA models, including CAPRA-MRI models, ranged from 0.743 to 0.778. AUCs were not significantly different between CAPRA-S and CAPRA-MRI models (p > .05). RFS rates were significantly different between low- and intermediate-risk groups for only CAPRA-MRI models (80% vs 51% and 74% vs 44%; both p < .001). CONCLUSION. Presurgical MRI-based staging features perform comparably to postsurgical pathologic staging features for predicting BCR. CLINICAL IMPACT. MRI staging can preoperatively identify patients at high BCR risk, helping to inform early clinical decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00026884 and NCT02594202.