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.

Deep Learning-based Unsupervised Domain Adaptation via a Unified Model for Prostate Lesion Detection Using Multisite Biparametric MRI Datasets.

Purpose To determine whether the unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) method with generated images improves the performance of a supervised learning (SL) model for prostate cancer (PCa) detection using multisite biparametric (bp) MRI datasets. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included data from 5150 patients (14 191 samples) collected across nine different imaging centers. A novel UDA method using a unified generative model was developed for PCa detection using multisite bpMRI datasets. This method translates diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) acquisitions, including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and individual diffusion-weighted (DW) images acquired using various b values, to align with the style of images acquired using b values recommended by Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) guidelines. The generated ADC and DW images replace the original images for PCa detection. An independent set of 1692 test cases (2393 samples) was used for evaluation. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used as the primary metric, and statistical analysis was performed via bootstrapping. Results For all test cases, the AUC values for baseline SL and UDA methods were 0.73 and 0.79 (P < .001), respectively, for PCa lesions with PI-RADS score of 3 or greater and 0.77 and 0.80 (P < .001) for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater. In the 361 test cases under the most unfavorable image acquisition setting, the AUC values for baseline SL and UDA were 0.49 and 0.76 (P < .001) for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 3 or greater and 0.50 and 0.77 (P < .001) for lesions with PI-RADS scores of 4 or greater. Conclusion UDA with generated images improved the performance of SL methods in PCa lesion detection across multisite datasets with various b values, especially for images acquired with significant deviations from the PI-RADS-recommended DWI protocol (eg, with an extremely high b value). Keywords: Prostate Cancer Detection, Multisite, Unsupervised Domain Adaptation, Diffusion-weighted Imaging, b Value Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2024.

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 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.

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.