MRI Radiomics in Prostate Cancer: A Reliability Study.
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)
prostate cancer
radiomics
target therapy
texture
Journal
Frontiers in oncology
ISSN: 2234-943X
Titre abrégé: Front Oncol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101568867
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
29
10
2021
accepted:
29
11
2021
entrez:
7
1
2022
pubmed:
8
1
2022
medline:
8
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Radiomics can provide quantitative features from medical imaging that can be correlated to clinical endpoints. The challenges relevant to robustness of radiomics features have been analyzed by many researchers, as it seems to be influenced by acquisition and reconstruction protocols, as well as by the segmentation of the region of interest (ROI). Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a difficult playground for this technique, due to discrepancies in the identification of the cancer lesion and the heterogeneity of the acquisition protocols. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of radiomics in PCa magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). A homogeneous cohort of patients with a PSA rise that underwent multiparametric MRI imaging of the prostate before biopsy was tested in this study. All the patients were acquired with the same MRI scanner, with a standardized protocol. The identification and the contouring of the region of interest (ROI) of an MRI suspicious cancer lesion were done by two radiologists with great experience in prostate cancer (>10 years). After the segmentation, the texture features were extracted with LIFEx. Texture features were then tested with intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) analysis to analyze the reliability of the segmentation. Forty-four consecutive patients were included in the present analysis. In 26 patients (59.1%), the prostate biopsy confirmed the presence of prostate cancer, which was scored as Gleason 6 in 6 patients (13.6%), Gleason 3 + 4 in 8 patients (18.2%), and Gleason 4 + 3 in 12 patients (27.3%). The reliability analysis conversely showed poor reliability in the majority of the MRI acquisition (61% in T2, 89% in DWI50, 44% in DWI400, and 83% in DWI1,500), with ADC acquisition only showing better reliability (poor reliability in only 33% of the texture features). The low ratio of reliability in a monoinstitutional homogeneous cohort represents a significant alarm bell for the application of MRI radiomics in the field of prostate cancer. More work is needed in a clinical setting to further study the potential of MRI radiomics in prostate cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Radiomics can provide quantitative features from medical imaging that can be correlated to clinical endpoints. The challenges relevant to robustness of radiomics features have been analyzed by many researchers, as it seems to be influenced by acquisition and reconstruction protocols, as well as by the segmentation of the region of interest (ROI). Prostate cancer (PCa) represents a difficult playground for this technique, due to discrepancies in the identification of the cancer lesion and the heterogeneity of the acquisition protocols. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of radiomics in PCa magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
METHODS
METHODS
A homogeneous cohort of patients with a PSA rise that underwent multiparametric MRI imaging of the prostate before biopsy was tested in this study. All the patients were acquired with the same MRI scanner, with a standardized protocol. The identification and the contouring of the region of interest (ROI) of an MRI suspicious cancer lesion were done by two radiologists with great experience in prostate cancer (>10 years). After the segmentation, the texture features were extracted with LIFEx. Texture features were then tested with intraclass coefficient correlation (ICC) analysis to analyze the reliability of the segmentation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Forty-four consecutive patients were included in the present analysis. In 26 patients (59.1%), the prostate biopsy confirmed the presence of prostate cancer, which was scored as Gleason 6 in 6 patients (13.6%), Gleason 3 + 4 in 8 patients (18.2%), and Gleason 4 + 3 in 12 patients (27.3%). The reliability analysis conversely showed poor reliability in the majority of the MRI acquisition (61% in T2, 89% in DWI50, 44% in DWI400, and 83% in DWI1,500), with ADC acquisition only showing better reliability (poor reliability in only 33% of the texture features).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The low ratio of reliability in a monoinstitutional homogeneous cohort represents a significant alarm bell for the application of MRI radiomics in the field of prostate cancer. More work is needed in a clinical setting to further study the potential of MRI radiomics in prostate cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34993153
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.805137
pmc: PMC8725993
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
805137Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Urraro, Nardone, Reginelli, Varelli, Angrisani, Patanè, D’Ambrosio, Roccatagliata, Russo, Gallo, De Chiara, Altucci and Cappabianca.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Med Phys. 2020 Apr;47(4):1680-1691
pubmed: 31971614
Cancer Imaging. 2013 Mar 26;13:140-9
pubmed: 23545171
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Sep 29;11(10):
pubmed: 34679494
Nature. 2013 Sep 19;501(7467):338-45
pubmed: 24048066
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Nat Rev Urol. 2021 Feb;18(2):79-92
pubmed: 33328650
J Thorac Imaging. 2018 Mar;33(2):69-70
pubmed: 29461430
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021 Jun;11(6):2376-2387
pubmed: 34079708
J Nucl Med. 2020 Apr;61(4):488-495
pubmed: 32060219
Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2021 Jul 6;:
pubmed: 34230616
Med Oncol. 2020 Mar 31;37(5):38
pubmed: 32236847
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Jul;46(1):184-193
pubmed: 27990722
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Aug;128(2):321-326
pubmed: 29731160
Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 1;7(9):10051-63
pubmed: 26840267
Carcinogenesis. 2017 Sep 1;38(9):900-909
pubmed: 28911002
J Urol. 2018 Oct;200(4):774-778
pubmed: 29679618
Magn Reson Imaging. 2020 Feb;66:165-175
pubmed: 31476359
Acad Radiol. 2021 Sep 28;:
pubmed: 34598869
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 Jan;71(1):7-33
pubmed: 33433946
Sci Rep. 2016 Mar 24;6:23428
pubmed: 27009765
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Nov 15;102(4):1143-1158
pubmed: 30170872
J Med Life. 2017 Jan-Mar;10(1):5-12
pubmed: 28255369
Cancers (Basel). 2021 Jul 17;13(14):
pubmed: 34298803
Stat Methods Med Res. 2015 Feb;24(1):27-67
pubmed: 24919831
JAMA. 2017 Jun 27;317(24):2532-2542
pubmed: 28655021
Am J Surg Pathol. 2016 Feb;40(2):244-52
pubmed: 26492179
Cancer Res. 2018 Aug 15;78(16):4786-4789
pubmed: 29959149
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018 Feb;8(1):14-24
pubmed: 29541619
Med Phys. 2021 Nov;48(11):6976-6986
pubmed: 34562286
Radiology. 2013 Feb;266(2):521-30
pubmed: 23204542
Exp Mol Med. 2018 Jan 5;50(1):e416
pubmed: 29303512
Radiographics. 2011 Oct;31(6):1773-91
pubmed: 21997994
Cancer Biol Ther. 2016 Nov;17(11):1213-1220
pubmed: 27791459
Nat Rev Cancer. 2020 Oct;20(10):555-572
pubmed: 32778778
In Vivo. 2017 May-Jun;31(3):415-418
pubmed: 28438871
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Sep 21;20(18):
pubmed: 32967291
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Mar 10;20(5):
pubmed: 32164378
Theriogenology. 2010 Jun;73(9):1167-79
pubmed: 20138353