Deep learning assessment compared to radiologist reporting for metastatic spinal cord compression on CT.

Introduction: Metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a disastrous complication of advanced malignancy. A deep learning (DL) algorithm for MSCC classification on CT could expedite timely diagnosis. In this study, we externally test a DL algorithm for MSCC classification on CT and compare with radiologist assessment. Methods: Retrospective collection of CT and corresponding MRI from patients with suspected MSCC was conducted from September 2007 to September 2020. Exclusion criteria were scans with instrumentation, no intravenous contrast, motion artefacts and non-thoracic coverage. Internal CT dataset split was 84% for training/validation and 16% for testing. An external test set was also utilised. Internal training/validation sets were labelled by radiologists with spine imaging specialization (6 and 11-years post-board certification) and were used to further develop a DL algorithm for MSCC classification. The spine imaging specialist (11-years expertise) labelled the test sets (reference standard). For evaluation of DL algorithm performance, internal and external test data were independently reviewed by four radiologists: two spine specialists (Rad1 and Rad2, 7 and 5-years post-board certification, respectively) and two oncological imaging specialists (Rad3 and Rad4, 3 and 5-years post-board certification, respectively). DL model performance was also compared against the CT report issued by the radiologist in a real clinical setting. Inter-rater agreement (Gwet's kappa) and sensitivity/specificity/AUCs were calculated. Results: Overall, 420 CT scans were evaluated (225 patients, mean age=60 ± 11.9[SD]); 354(84%) CTs for training/validation and 66(16%) CTs for internal testing. The DL algorithm showed high inter-rater agreement for three-class MSCC grading with kappas of 0.872 (p<0.001) and 0.844 (p<0.001) on internal and external testing, respectively. On internal testing DL algorithm inter-rater agreement (κ=0.872) was superior to Rad 2 (κ=0.795) and Rad 3 (κ=0.724) (both p<0.001). DL algorithm kappa of 0.844 on external testing was superior to Rad 3 (κ=0.721) (p<0.001). CT report classification of high-grade MSCC disease was poor with only slight inter-rater agreement (κ=0.027) and low sensitivity (44.0), relative to the DL algorithm with almost-perfect inter-rater agreement (κ=0.813) and high sensitivity (94.0) (p<0.001). Conclusion: Deep learning algorithm for metastatic spinal cord compression on CT showed superior performance to the CT report issued by experienced radiologists and could aid earlier diagnosis.

A deep learning-based technique for the diagnosis of epidural spinal cord compression on thoracolumbar CT.

PURPOSE: To develop a deep learning (DL) model for epidural spinal cord compression (ESCC) on CT, which will aid earlier ESCC diagnosis for less experienced clinicians. METHODS: We retrospectively collected CT and MRI data from adult patients with suspected ESCC at a tertiary referral institute from 2007 till 2020. A total of 183 patients were used for training/validation of the DL model. A separate test set of 40 patients was used for DL model evaluation and comprised 60 staging CT and matched MRI scans performed with an interval of up to 2 months. DL model performance was compared to eight readers: one musculoskeletal radiologist, two body radiologists, one spine surgeon, and four trainee spine surgeons. Diagnostic performance was evaluated using inter-rater agreement, sensitivity, specificity and AUC. RESULTS: Overall, 3115 axial CT slices were assessed. The DL model showed high kappa of 0.872 for normal, low and high-grade ESCC (trichotomous), which was superior compared to a body radiologist (R4, κ = 0.667) and all four trainee spine surgeons (κ range = 0.625-0.838)(all p < 0.001). In addition, for dichotomous normal versus any grade of ESCC detection, the DL model showed high kappa (κ = 0.879), sensitivity (91.82), specificity (92.01) and AUC (0.919), with the latter AUC superior to all readers (AUC range = 0.732-0.859, all p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A deep learning model for the objective assessment of ESCC on CT had comparable or superior performance to radiologists and spine surgeons. Earlier diagnosis of ESCC on CT could reduce treatment delays, which are associated with poor outcomes, increased costs, and reduced survival.

5-alpha reductase inhibitors and MRI prostates: actively reducing prostate sizes and ambiguity.

BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans are increasingly first-line investigations for suspected prostate cancer, and essential in the decision for biopsy. 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) use has been shown to reduce prostate size and prostate cancer risk. However, insufficient data exists on how 5-ARI use affects MRI findings and yield of biopsy. This study explores the differences in imaging and prostate cancer diagnoses between patients receiving and not receiving 5-ARI therapy. METHODS: From 2015 to 2020, we collected retrospective data of consecutive patients undergoing prostate biopsy at one centre. We included patients who were biopsy-naïve, had prior negative biopsies, or on active surveillance for low-grade prostate cancer. Clinical and pathological data was collected, including 5-ARI use, Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) classification and biopsy results. RESULTS: 351 men underwent saturation biopsy with or without targeted biopsies. 54 (15.3%) had a history of 5-ARI use. On mpMRI, there was no significant difference between the 5ARI and non-5-ARI groups in PIRADS distribution, number of lesions, and lesion location. Significantly fewer cancers were detected in the 5-ARI group (46.3% vs. 68.0%; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in PIRADS distribution in 5-ARI patients with positive and negative biopsy. CONCLUSION: Our study found significant differences in biochemical, imaging and biopsy characteristics between 5-ARI and non-5-ARI groups. While both groups had similar PIRADS distribution, 5-ARI patients had a lower rate of positive biopsies across all PIRADS categories, which may suggest that the use of 5ARI may confound MRI findings. Further studies on how 5-ARI therapy affects the imaging characteristics of prostate cancer should be performed.

Impact of contrast-enhanced mammography in surgical management of breast cancers for women with dense breasts: a dual-center, multi-disciplinary study in Asia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of pre-operative contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in breast cancer patients with dense breasts. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 232 histologically proven breast cancers in 200 women (mean age: 53.4 years ± 10.2) who underwent pre-surgical CEM imaging across two Asian institutions (Singapore and Taiwan). Majority (95.5%) of patients had dense breast tissue (BI-RADS category C or D). Surgical decision was recorded in a simulated blinded multi-disciplinary team setting on two separate scenarios: (i) pre-CEM setting with standard imaging, and clinical and histopathological results; and (ii) post-CEM setting with new imaging and corresponding histological findings from CEM. Alterations in surgical plan (if any) because of CEM imaging were recorded. Predictors CEM of patients who benefitted from surgical plan alterations were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: CEM resulted in altered surgical plans in 36 (18%) of 200 patients in this study. CEM discovered clinically significant larger tumor size or extent in 24 (12%) patients and additional tumors in 12 (6%) patients. CEM also detected additional benign/false-positive lesions in 13 (6.5%) of the 200 patients. Significant predictors of patients who benefitted from surgical alterations found on multivariate analysis were pre-CEM surgical decision for upfront breast conservation (OR, 7.7; 95% CI, 1.9-32.1; p = 0.005), architectural distortion on mammograms (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 1.3-42.9; p = .022), and tumor size of ≥ 1.5 cm (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.2; p = .034). CONCLUSION: CEM is an effective imaging technique for pre-surgical planning for Asian breast cancer patients with dense breasts. KEY POINTS: • CEM significantly altered surgical plans in 18% (nearly 1 in 5) of this Asian study cohort with dense breasts. • Significant patient and imaging predictors for surgical plan alteration include (i) patients considered for upfront breast-conserving surgery; (ii) architectural distortion lesions; and (iii) tumor size of ≥ 1.5 cm. • Additional false-positive/benign lesions detected through CEM were uncommon, affecting only 6.5% of the study cohort.

Deep Learning Model for Grading Metastatic Epidural Spinal Cord Compression on Staging CT.

Background: Metastatic epidural spinal cord compression (MESCC) is a disastrous complication of advanced malignancy. Deep learning (DL) models for automatic MESCC classification on staging CT were developed to aid earlier diagnosis. Methods: This retrospective study included 444 CT staging studies from 185 patients with suspected MESCC who underwent MRI spine studies within 60 days of the CT studies. The DL model training/validation dataset consisted of 316/358 (88%) and the test set of 42/358 (12%) CT studies. Training/validation and test datasets were labeled in consensus by two subspecialized radiologists (6 and 11-years-experience) using the MRI studies as the reference standard. Test sets were labeled by the developed DL models and four radiologists (2−7 years of experience) for comparison. Results: DL models showed almost-perfect interobserver agreement for classification of CT spine images into normal, low, and high-grade MESCC, with kappas ranging from 0.873−0.911 (p < 0.001). The DL models (lowest κ = 0.873, 95% CI 0.858−0.887) also showed superior interobserver agreement compared to two of the four radiologists for three-class classification, including a specialist (κ = 0.820, 95% CI 0.803−0.837) and general radiologist (κ = 0.726, 95% CI 0.706−0.747), both p < 0.001. Conclusion: DL models for the MESCC classification on a CT showed comparable to superior interobserver agreement to radiologists and could be used to aid earlier diagnosis.

Improved Productivity Using Deep Learning-assisted Reporting for Lumbar Spine MRI.

Background Lumbar spine MRI studies are widely used for back pain assessment. Interpretation involves grading lumbar spinal stenosis, which is repetitive and time consuming. Deep learning (DL) could provide faster and more consistent interpretation. Purpose To assess the speed and interobserver agreement of radiologists for reporting lumbar spinal stenosis with and without DL assistance. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, a DL model designed to assist radiologists in the interpretation of spinal canal, lateral recess, and neural foraminal stenoses on lumbar spine MRI scans was used. Randomly selected lumbar spine MRI studies obtained in patients with back pain who were 18 years and older over a 3-year period, from September 2015 to September 2018, were included in an internal test data set. Studies with instrumentation and scoliosis were excluded. Eight radiologists, each with 2-13 years of experience in spine MRI interpretation, reviewed studies with and without DL model assistance with a 1-month washout period. Time to diagnosis (in seconds) and interobserver agreement (using Gwet κ) were assessed for stenosis grading for each radiologist with and without the DL model and compared with test data set labels provided by an external musculoskeletal radiologist (with 32 years of experience) as the reference standard. Results Overall, 444 images in 25 patients (mean age, 51 years ± 20 [SD]; 14 women) were evaluated in a test data set. DL-assisted radiologists had a reduced interpretation time per spine MRI study, from a mean of 124-274 seconds (SD, 25-88 seconds) to 47-71 seconds (SD, 24-29 seconds) (P < .001). DL-assisted radiologists had either superior or equivalent interobserver agreement for all stenosis gradings compared with unassisted radiologists. DL-assisted general and in-training radiologists improved their interobserver agreement for four-class neural foraminal stenosis, with κ values of 0.71 and 0.70 (with DL) versus 0.39 and 0.39 (without DL), respectively (both P < .001). Conclusion Radiologists who were assisted by deep learning for interpretation of lumbar spinal stenosis on MRI scans showed a marked reduction in reporting time and superior or equivalent interobserver agreement for all stenosis gradings compared with radiologists who were unassisted by deep learning. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Hayashi in this issue.

The Effectiveness of Full-body EOS Compared With Conventional Chest X-ray in Preoperative Evaluation of the Chest for Patients Undergoing Spine Operations: A Preliminary Study.

STUDY DESIGN: A prospective radiographic comparative study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare full-body EOS with conventional chest X-ray (CXR) for use in the preoperative evaluation of the chest in patients undergoing spine operations. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The full-body EOS reproduces an image of the chest similar to a routine CXR. The potential for the former replacing the latter is plausible. This is especially applicable in spine patients who would routinely have a preoperative full-body EOS performed. METHODS: A radiographic comparative study of 266 patients was conducted at a single tertiary center from January 2013 to July 2016. Each patient had EOS and CXR done in random order <2 weeks apart. Two radiologists reported the image findings using a checklist. A third radiologist was consulted in cases of discrepancy. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Gwet AC1 and a comparison between EOS and CXR findings was analyzed using paired Chi-squared test. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors for abnormal radiological findings. The institutional ethics committee approved this prospective study and waiver of informed consent was obtained. RESULTS: There were 84 males (31.6%) and 182 females (68.4%). The mean age was 38.9 years (SD = 25.0 years). High interobserver agreement was found for EOS and CXR (Gwet AC1 0.993 and 0.988, respectively). There were no significant differences between both imaging modalities. Rare diagnoses precluded comparison of certain conditions. Age >18 years [odds ratio (OR) 7.69; P = 0.009] and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 (OR 6.64; P = 0.018) were independent predictors of abnormal radiological findings. CONCLUSION: EOS is not inferior to, and may be used to replace CXR in preoperative radiological screening of thoracic conditions especially in low-risk patients ≤18 years old and patients with ASA <3. Preoperative assessment should never rely on a single modality. High-risk patients should be sent for a thorough work-up before spine surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.