Performance of a Region of Interest-based Algorithm in Diagnosing International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2 Prostate Cancer on the MRI-FIRST Database-CAD-FIRST Study.

Artificial intelligence Magnetic resonance imaging Prostate biopsy Prostate cancer Radiomics

Journal

European urology oncology
ISSN: 2588-9311
Titre abrégé: Eur Urol Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101724904

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 01 02 2024
accepted: 01 03 2024
medline: 17 3 2024
pubmed: 17 3 2024
entrez: 16 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows high sensitivity for International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) ≥2 cancers. Many artificial intelligence algorithms have shown promising results in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI. To assess a region-of-interest-based machine-learning algorithm aimed at characterising GG ≥2 prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI. The lesions targeted at biopsy in the MRI-FIRST dataset were retrospectively delineated and assessed using a previously developed algorithm. The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) score assigned prospectively before biopsy and the algorithm score calculated retrospectively in the regions of interest were compared for diagnosing GG ≥2 cancer, using the areas under the curve (AUCs), and sensitivities and specificities calculated with predefined thresholds (PIRADSv2 scores ≥3 and ≥4; algorithm scores yielding 90% sensitivity in the training database). Ten predefined biopsy strategies were assessed retrospectively. After excluding 19 patients, we analysed 232 patients imaged on 16 different scanners; 85 had GG ≥2 cancer at biopsy. At patient level, AUCs of the algorithm and PI-RADSv2 were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70-82) and 80% (CI: 74-85; p = 0.36), respectively. The algorithm's sensitivity and specificity were 86% (CI: 76-93) and 65% (CI: 54-73), respectively. PI-RADSv2 sensitivities and specificities were 95% (CI: 89-100) and 38% (CI: 26-47), and 89% (CI: 79-96) and 47% (CI: 35-57) for thresholds of ≥3 and ≥4, respectively. Using the PI-RADSv2 score to trigger a biopsy would have avoided 26-34% of biopsies while missing 5-11% of GG ≥2 cancers. Combining prostate-specific antigen density, the PI-RADSv2 and algorithm's scores would have avoided 44-47% of biopsies while missing 6-9% of GG ≥2 cancers. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and a lack of PI-RADS version 2.1 assessment. The algorithm provided robust results in the multicentre multiscanner MRI-FIRST database and could help select patients for biopsy. An artificial intelligence-based algorithm aimed at diagnosing aggressive cancers on prostate magnetic resonance imaging showed results similar to expert human assessment in a prospectively acquired multicentre test database.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows high sensitivity for International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) ≥2 cancers. Many artificial intelligence algorithms have shown promising results in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI. To assess a region-of-interest-based machine-learning algorithm aimed at characterising GG ≥2 prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI.
METHODS METHODS
The lesions targeted at biopsy in the MRI-FIRST dataset were retrospectively delineated and assessed using a previously developed algorithm. The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) score assigned prospectively before biopsy and the algorithm score calculated retrospectively in the regions of interest were compared for diagnosing GG ≥2 cancer, using the areas under the curve (AUCs), and sensitivities and specificities calculated with predefined thresholds (PIRADSv2 scores ≥3 and ≥4; algorithm scores yielding 90% sensitivity in the training database). Ten predefined biopsy strategies were assessed retrospectively.
KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS UNASSIGNED
After excluding 19 patients, we analysed 232 patients imaged on 16 different scanners; 85 had GG ≥2 cancer at biopsy. At patient level, AUCs of the algorithm and PI-RADSv2 were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70-82) and 80% (CI: 74-85; p = 0.36), respectively. The algorithm's sensitivity and specificity were 86% (CI: 76-93) and 65% (CI: 54-73), respectively. PI-RADSv2 sensitivities and specificities were 95% (CI: 89-100) and 38% (CI: 26-47), and 89% (CI: 79-96) and 47% (CI: 35-57) for thresholds of ≥3 and ≥4, respectively. Using the PI-RADSv2 score to trigger a biopsy would have avoided 26-34% of biopsies while missing 5-11% of GG ≥2 cancers. Combining prostate-specific antigen density, the PI-RADSv2 and algorithm's scores would have avoided 44-47% of biopsies while missing 6-9% of GG ≥2 cancers. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and a lack of PI-RADS version 2.1 assessment.
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS CONCLUSIONS
The algorithm provided robust results in the multicentre multiscanner MRI-FIRST database and could help select patients for biopsy.
PATIENT SUMMARY RESULTS
An artificial intelligence-based algorithm aimed at diagnosing aggressive cancers on prostate magnetic resonance imaging showed results similar to expert human assessment in a prospectively acquired multicentre test database.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38493072
pii: S2588-9311(24)00056-7
doi: 10.1016/j.euo.2024.03.003
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Thibaut Couchoux (T)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Tristan Jaouen (T)

LabTau, INSERM Unit 1032, Lyon, France.

Christelle Melodelima-Gonindard (C)

Laboratoire d'écologie Alpine, CNRS, UMR 5553, Grenoble, France; Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France.

Pierre Baseilhac (P)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Arthur Branchu (A)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Nicolas Arfi (N)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Saint Joseph Saint Luc, Lyon, France.

Richard Aziza (R)

Department of Radiology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

Nicolas Barry Delongchamps (N)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Franck Bladou (F)

Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.

Flavie Bratan (F)

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, Hôpital Saint Joseph Saint Luc, Lyon, France.

Serge Brunelle (S)

Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France.

Pierre Colin (P)

Department of Urology, Hôpital privé La Louvrière, Lille, France.

Jean-Michel Correas (JM)

Department of Radiology, Hôpital Necker, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

François Cornud (F)

Department of Radiology, Hôpital Cochin, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Jean-Luc Descotes (JL)

Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France; Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Grenoble, France.

Pascal Eschwege (P)

Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy, Vandoeuvre, France.

Gaelle Fiard (G)

Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France; Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Grenoble, France.

Bénédicte Guillaume (B)

Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble, Université Grenoble Apes, Grenoble, France.

Rémi Grange (R)

Department of Radiology, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.

Nicolas Grenier (N)

Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.

Hervé Lang (H)

Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.

Frédéric Lefèvre (F)

Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy, Vandoeuvre, France.

Bernard Malavaud (B)

Department of Urology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

Clément Marcelin (C)

Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux, Hôpital Pellegrin, Bordeaux, France.

Paul C Moldovan (PC)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Nicolas Mottet (N)

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France.

Pierre Mozer (P)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Eric Potiron (E)

Clinique Urologique de Nantes, Saint-Herblain, France.

Daniel Portalez (D)

Department of Radiology, Institut Universitaire du Cancer de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.

Philippe Puech (P)

Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Lille, Lille, France.

Raphaele Renard-Penna (R)

Department of Radiology, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France; GRC no 5, ONCOTYPE-URO, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France.

Matthieu Roumiguié (M)

Department of Urology, Toulouse-Rangueil University Hospital, Toulouse France.

Catherine Roy (C)

Department of Radiology B, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.

Marc-Olivier Timsit (MO)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France.

Thibault Tricard (T)

Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Strasbourg, Nouvel Hôpital Civil, Strasbourg, France.

Arnauld Villers (A)

Department of Urology, Univ. Lille, CHU Lille, Lille, France.

Jochen Walz (J)

Department of Urology, Institut Paoli-Calmettes Cancer Center, Marseille, France.

Sabine Debeer (S)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Adeline Mansuy (A)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Florence Mège-Lechevallier (F)

Department of Pathology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France.

Myriam Decaussin-Petrucci (M)

Department of Pathology, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France.

Lionel Badet (L)

Department of Urology, University Hospital of Saint-Etienne, Saint-Priest-en-Jarez, France; Department of Urology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Marc Colombel (M)

Department of Urology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Alain Ruffion (A)

Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Department of Urology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Hospices Cibvils de Lyon, Pierre-Bénite, France.

Sébastien Crouzet (S)

LabTau, INSERM Unit 1032, Lyon, France; Department of Urology, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France.

Muriel Rabilloud (M)

Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Pôle Santé Publique, Service de Biostatistique et Bioinformatique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; CNRS, UMR 5558, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, Équipe Biostatistique-Santé, Villeurbanne, France.

Rémi Souchon (R)

LabTau, INSERM Unit 1032, Lyon, France.

Olivier Rouvière (O)

Department of Urinary and Vascular Imaging, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; LabTau, INSERM Unit 1032, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Université de Lyon, Lyon, France. Electronic address: olivier.rouviere@netcourrier.com.

Classifications MeSH