Prostate Cancer Nodal Staging: Using Deep Learning to Predict
Aged
Deep Learning
Gallium Isotopes
Gallium Radioisotopes
Humans
Lymphatic Metastasis
Male
Membrane Glycoproteins
/ administration & dosage
Organometallic Compounds
/ administration & dosage
Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
Prostatic Neoplasms
/ diagnostic imaging
Retrospective Studies
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 02 2020
25 02 2020
Historique:
received:
29
07
2019
accepted:
11
02
2020
entrez:
27
2
2020
pubmed:
27
2
2020
medline:
11
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Lymphatic spread determines treatment decisions in prostate cancer (PCa) patients. 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT can be performed, although cost remains high and availability is limited. Therefore, computed tomography (CT) continues to be the most used modality for PCa staging. We assessed if convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can be trained to determine 68Ga-PSMA-PET/CT-lymph node status from CT alone. In 549 patients with 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT imaging, 2616 lymph nodes were segmented. Using PET as a reference standard, three CNNs were trained. Training sets balanced for infiltration status, lymph node location and additionally, masked images, were used for training. CNNs were evaluated using a separate test set and performance was compared to radiologists' assessments and random forest classifiers. Heatmaps maps were used to identify the performance determining image regions. The CNNs performed with an Area-Under-the-Curve of 0.95 (status balanced) and 0.86 (location balanced, masked), compared to an AUC of 0.81 of experienced radiologists. Interestingly, CNNs used anatomical surroundings to increase their performance, "learning" the infiltration probabilities of anatomical locations. In conclusion, CNNs have the potential to build a well performing CT-based biomarker for lymph node metastases in PCa, with different types of class balancing strongly affecting CNN performance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32099001
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60311-z
pii: 10.1038/s41598-020-60311-z
pmc: PMC7042227
doi:
Substances chimiques
Gallium Isotopes
0
Gallium Radioisotopes
0
Membrane Glycoproteins
0
Organometallic Compounds
0
gallium 68 PSMA-11
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
3398Références
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D. & Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J. Clin. 68, 7–30, https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21442 (2018).
doi: 10.3322/caac.21442
pubmed: 29313949
Oderda, M., Joniau, S., Spahn, M. & Gontero, P. Debulking surgery in the setting of very high-risk prostate cancer scenarios. BJU Int. 110, E192–E198, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10942.x (2012).
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.10942.x
pubmed: 22313515
Luchini, C. et al. Extranodal extension of lymph node metastasis influences recurrence in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 7, 2374, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-02577-4 (2017).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-02577-4
pubmed: 28539662
pmcid: 5443831
Carroll, P. R. et al. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Prostate Cancer Early Detection, Version 2.2016. J. Natl Compr. Canc Netw. 14, 509–519 (2016).
doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0060
Mottet, N. et al. EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur. Urol. 71, 618–629, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.003
pubmed: 27568654
Engeler, C. E., Wasserman, N. F. & Zhang, G. Preoperative assessment of prostatic carcinoma by computerized tomography: Weaknessnes and new perspectives. Urol. 40, 346–350, https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(92)90386-B (1992).
doi: 10.1016/0090-4295(92)90386-B
pubmed: 1413354
Flanigan, R. C. et al. Limited efficacy of preoperative computed tomographic scanning for the evaluation of lymph node metastasis in patients before radical prostatectomy. Urol. 48, 428–432, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00161-6 (1996).
doi: 10.1016/S0090-4295(96)00161-6
pubmed: 8804497
Hövels, A. M. et al. The diagnostic accuracy of CT and MRI in the staging of pelvic lymph nodes in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin. Radiol. 63, 387–395, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2007.05.022
pubmed: 18325358
Maurer, T. et al. Diagnostic Efficacy of (68)Gallium-PSMA Positron Emission Tomography Compared to Conventional Imaging for Lymph Node Staging of 130 Consecutive Patients with Intermediate to High Risk Prostate Cancer. J. Urol. 195, 1436–1443, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.025
pubmed: 26682756
Heesakkers, R. A. M. et al. MRI with a lymph-node-specific contrast agent as an alternative to CT scan and lymph-node dissection in patients with prostate cancer: a prospective multicohort study. Lancet Oncol. 9, 850–856, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70203-1 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70203-1
pubmed: 18708295
Gillessen, S. et al. Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: The Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference APCCC 2017. Eur. Urol. 73, 178–211, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.002 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2017.06.002
pubmed: 28655541
Silver, D. A., Pellicer, I., Fair, W. R., Heston, W. D. & Cordon-Cardo, C. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression in normal and malignant human tissues. Clin. Cancer Res. 3, 81–85 (1997).
pubmed: 9815541
Bostwick, D. G., Pacelli, A., Blute, M., Roche, P. & Murphy, G. P. Prostate specific membrane antigen expression in prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and adenocarcinoma. Cancer 82, 2256–2261, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980601)82:11<2256::AID-CNCR22>3.0.CO;2-S (1998).
Perner, S. et al. Prostate-specific membrane antigen expression as a predictor of prostate cancer progression. Hum. Pathol. 38, 696–701, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2006.11.012 (2007).
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.11.012
pubmed: 17320151
Perera, M. et al. Gallium-68 Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Positron Emission Tomography in Advanced Prostate Cancer—Updated Diagnostic Utility, Sensitivity, Specificity, and Distribution of Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-avid Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.01.049
pubmed: 30773328
Leeuwen, P. J. V. et al. Prospective evaluation of 68Gallium-prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography/computed tomography for preoperative lymph node staging in prostate cancer. BJU Int. 119, 209–215, https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13540 (2017).
doi: 10.1111/bju.13540
pubmed: 27207581
Hofman, M. S., Hicks, R. J., Maurer, T. & Eiber, M. Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen PET: Clinical Utility in Prostate Cancer, Normal Patterns, Pearls, and Pitfalls. Radiographics 38, 200–217, https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018170108 (2018).
doi: 10.1148/rg.2018170108
pubmed: 29320333
Afshar-Oromieh, A. et al. PET imaging with a [68Ga]gallium-labelled PSMA ligand for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: biodistribution in humans and first evaluation of tumour lesions. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 40, 486–495, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2 (2013).
doi: 10.1007/s00259-012-2298-2
pubmed: 23179945
Surti, S. et al. Performance of Philips Gemini TF PET/CT scanner with special consideration for its time-of-flight imaging capabilities. J. Nucl. Med. 48, 471–480 (2007).
pubmed: 17332626
Wolf, I. et al. The medical imaging interaction toolkit. Med. Image Anal. 9, 594–604, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2005.04.005 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.media.2005.04.005
pubmed: 15896995
Simonyan, K. & Zisserman, A. Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv:1409.1556 [cs] (2014).
Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. arXiv:1412.6980 [cs] (2014).
Alber, M. et al. iNNvestigate neural networks! arXiv:1808.04260 [cs, stat] (2018).
Kindermans, P.-J. et al. Learning how to explain neural networks: PatternNet and PatternAttribution. arXiv:1705.05598 [cs, stat] (2017).
Pedregosa, F. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011).
pROC: Display and Analyze ROC Curves v. 1.13.0 (2018).
Haenssle, H. A. et al. Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists. Ann. Oncol. 29, 1836–1842, https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy166 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy166
pubmed: 29846502
Giesel, F. L. et al. Correlation Between SUVmax and CT Radiomic Analysis Using Lymph Node Density in PET/CT-Based Lymph Node Staging. J. Nucl. Med. 58, 282–287, https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.179648 (2017).
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.116.179648
pubmed: 27660141
Shaish, H. et al. Prediction of Lymph Node Maximum Standardized Uptake Value in Patients With Cancer Using a 3D Convolutional Neural Network: A Proof-of-Concept Study. American Journal of Roentgenology, 1–7, https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.18.20094 (2018).
doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20094
Beig, N. et al. Perinodular and Intranodular Radiomic Features on Lung CT Images Distinguish Adenocarcinomas from Granulomas. Radiology, 180910, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180910 (2018).
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018180910
Ha, R. et al. Axillary Lymph Node Evaluation Utilizing Convolutional Neural Networks Using MRI Dataset. J Digit Imaging, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0086-7 (2018).
doi: 10.1007/s10278-018-0086-7
Kann, B. H. et al. Pretreatment Identification of Head and Neck Cancer Nodal Metastasis and Extranodal Extension Using Deep Learning Neural Networks. Sci. Rep. 8, 14036, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-32441-y (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32441-y
pubmed: 30232350
pmcid: 6145900
Lu, Y. et al. Identification of Metastatic Lymph Nodes in MR Imaging with Faster Region-Based Convolutional Neural Networks. Cancer Res. 78, 5135–5143, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0494 (2018).
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0494
pubmed: 30026330
EAU-ESTRO-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Relapsing, Metastatic, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 71, 630–642, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.002 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.002
Hijazi, S. et al. Pelvic lymph node dissection for nodal oligometastatic prostate cancer detected by 68Ga-PSMA-positron emission tomography/computerized tomography. Prostate 75, 1934–1940, https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.23091 (2015).
doi: 10.1002/pros.23091
pubmed: 26356236
Jilg, C. A. et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Ga-68-HBED-CC-PSMA-Ligand-PET/CT before Salvage Lymph Node Dissection for Recurrent Prostate Cancer. Theranostics 7, 1770, https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.18421 (2017).
doi: 10.7150/thno.18421
pubmed: 28529650
pmcid: 5436526