Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 10/2017

01-10-2017 | Oncology

Machine learning-based analysis of MR radiomics can help to improve the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 in clinically relevant prostate cancer

Authors: Jing Wang, Chen-Jiang Wu, Mei-Ling Bao, Jing Zhang, Xiao-Ning Wang, Yu-Dong Zhang

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate whether machine learning-based analysis of MR radiomics can help improve the performance PI-RADS v2 in clinically relevant prostate cancer (PCa).

Methods

This IRB-approved study included 54 patients with PCa undergoing multi-parametric (mp) MRI before prostatectomy. Imaging analysis was performed on 54 tumours, 47 normal peripheral (PZ) and 48 normal transitional (TZ) zone based on histological-radiological correlation. Mp-MRI was scored via PI-RADS, and quantified by measuring radiomic features. Predictive model was developed using a novel support vector machine trained with: (i) radiomics, (ii) PI-RADS scores, (iii) radiomics and PI-RADS scores. Paired comparison was made via ROC analysis.

Results

For PCa versus normal TZ, the model trained with radiomics had a significantly higher area under the ROC curve (Az) (0.955 [95% CI 0.923–0.976]) than PI-RADS (Az: 0.878 [0.834–0.914], p < 0.001). The Az between them was insignificant for PCa versus PZ (0.972 [0.945–0.988] vs. 0.940 [0.905–0.965], p = 0.097). When radiomics was added, performance of PI-RADS was significantly improved for PCa versus PZ (Az: 0.983 [0.960–0.995]) and PCa versus TZ (Az: 0.968 [0.940–0.985]).

Conclusion

Machine learning analysis of MR radiomics can help improve the performance of PI-RADS in clinically relevant PCa.

Key Points

• Machine-based analysis of MR radiomics outperformed in TZ cancer against PI-RADS.
• Adding MR radiomics significantly improved the performance of PI-RADS.
• DKI-derived Dapp and Kapp were two strong markers for the diagnosis of PCa.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Yakar D, Debats OA, Bomers JG et al (2012) Predictive value of MRI in the localization, staging, volume estimation, assessment of aggressiveness, and guidance of radiotherapy and biopsies in prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:20–31CrossRefPubMed
3.
Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T et al (2011) Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology 259:775–784CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Soylu FN, Peng Y, Jiang Y et al (2013) Seminal vesicle invasion in prostate cancer: evaluation by using multiparametric endorectal MR imaging. Radiology 267:797–806CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wang Q, Li H, Yan X et al (2015) Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 33(337):e315–e324
6.
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461CrossRefPubMed
7.
Park SY, Oh YT, Jung DC et al (2016) Prediction of biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy with PI-RADS version 2 in prostate cancers: initial results. Eur Radiol 26:2502–2509CrossRefPubMed
8.
Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging - Reporting and data system: 2015, Version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRefPubMed
9.
Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C et al (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267:787–796CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kickingereder P, Bonekamp D, Nowosielski M et al (2016) Radiogenomics of glioblastoma: Machine learning-based classification of molecular characteristics by using multiparametric and multiregional MR imaging features. Radiology 281:907–918CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zhang YD, Wang J, Wu CJ et al (2016) An imaging-based approach predicts clinical outcomes in prostate cancer through a novel support vector machine classification. Oncotarget. doi:10.​18632/​oncotarget.​11293
12.
Zhang YD, Shen CM, Meng HT et al (2016) Allele and haplotype diversity of new multiplex of 19 ChrX-STR loci in Han population from Guanzhong region (China). Electrophoresis 37:1669–1675CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zhang YD, Wu CJ, Bao ML et al (2016) New RESOLVE-based diffusional kurtosis imaging in MRI-visible prostate cancer: effect of reduced b value on image quality and diagnostic effectiveness. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:330–338CrossRefPubMed
14.
Oto A, Kayhan A, Jiang Y et al (2010) Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 257:715–723CrossRefPubMed
15.
Cho BH, Yu H, Lee J, Chee YJ, Kim IY, Kim SI (2008) Nonlinear support vector machine visualization for risk factor analysis using nomograms and localized radial basis function kernels. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 12:247–256CrossRefPubMed
16.
Majumder SK, Ghosh N, Gupta PK (2005) Support vector machine for optical diagnosis of cancer. J Biomed Opt 10:024034CrossRefPubMed
17.
Fehr D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A et al (2015) Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:E6265–E6273CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Larroza A, Moratal D, Paredes-Sanchez A et al (2015) Support vector machine classification of brain metastasis and radiation necrosis based on texture analysis in MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1362–1368CrossRefPubMed
19.
Cawley GC, Talbot NL (2004) Fast exact leave-one-out cross-validation of sparse least-squares support vector machines. Neural Netw 17:1467–1475CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Baldisserotto M, Neto EJ, Carvalhal G et al (2016) Validation of PI-RADS v.2 for prostate cancer diagnosis with MRI at 3T using an external phased-array coil. J Magn Reson Imaging. doi:10.​1002/​jmri.​25284
22.
Kasel-Seibert M, Lehmann T, Aschenbach R et al (2016) Assessment of PI-RADS v2 for the Detection of Prostate Cancer. Eur J Radiol 85:726–731CrossRefPubMed
23.
Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. Radiology. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2016152542:​152542
24.
Sung YS, Kwon HJ, Park BW et al (2011) Prostate cancer detection on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: computer-aided diagnosis versus single perfusion parameter maps. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:1122–1129CrossRefPubMed
25.
Niaf E, Rouviere O, Mege-Lechevallier F, Bratan F, Lartizien C (2012) Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI. Phys Med Biol 57:3833–3851CrossRefPubMed
26.
Koyasu S, Iima M, Umeoka S et al (2014) The clinical utility of reduced-distortion readout-segmented echo-planar imaging in the head and neck region: initial experience. Eur Radiol 24:3088–3096CrossRefPubMed
27.
Tokoro H, Fujinaga Y, Ohya A et al (2014) Usefulness of free-breathing readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (RESOLVE) for detection of malignant liver tumors: comparison with single-shot echo-planar imaging (SS-EPI). Eur J Radiol 83:1728–1733CrossRefPubMed
28.
Bogner W, Pinker K, Zaric O et al (2015) Bilateral diffusion-weighted MR imaging of breast tumors with submillimeter resolution using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging at 7 T. Radiology 274:74–84CrossRefPubMed
29.
Rosenkrantz AB, Prabhu V, Sigmund EE, Babb JS, Deng FM, Taneja SS (2013) Utility of diffusional kurtosis imaging as a marker of adverse pathologic outcomes among prostate cancer active surveillance candidates undergoing radical prostatectomy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:840–846CrossRefPubMed
30.
Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G et al (2012) Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 264:126–135CrossRefPubMed
31.
Suo S, Chen X, Wu L et al (2014) Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 32:421–427CrossRefPubMed
32.
Quentin M, Pentang G, Schimmoller L et al (2014) Feasibility of diffusional kurtosis tensor imaging in prostate MRI for the assessment of prostate cancer: preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging 32:880–885CrossRefPubMed
33.
Tamura C, Shinmoto H, Soga S et al (2014) Diffusion kurtosis imaging study of prostate cancer: preliminary findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:723–729CrossRefPubMed
34.
Lin X, Yang F, Zhou L et al (2012) A support vector machine-recursive feature elimination feature selection method based on artificial contrast variables and mutual information. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 910:149–155CrossRefPubMed
35.
Roethke MC, Kuru TH, Schultze S et al (2014) Evaluation of the ESUR PI-RADS scoring system for multiparametric MRI of the prostate with targeted MR/TRUS fusion-guided biopsy at 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 24:344–352CrossRefPubMed
36.
Junker D, Quentin M, Nagele U et al (2015) Evaluation of the PI-RADS scoring system for mpMRI of the prostate: a whole-mount step-section analysis. World J Urol 33:1023–1030CrossRefPubMed
37.
Wang R, Wang H, Zhao C et al (2015) Evaluation of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Detection and Prediction of Prostate Cancer. PLoS One 10, e0130207CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Zhang L, Li Y, Jin Z, Yu JC, Chan KM (2015) An NIR-triggered and thermally responsive drug delivery platform through DNA/copper sulfide gates. Nanoscale 7:12614–12624CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Machine learning-based analysis of MR radiomics can help to improve the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS v2 in clinically relevant prostate cancer
Authors
Jing Wang
Chen-Jiang Wu
Mei-Ling Bao
Jing Zhang
Xiao-Ning Wang
Yu-Dong Zhang
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4800-5

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

European Radiology 10/2017 Go to the issue

Gastrointestinal

Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching

Musculoskeletal

3D double-echo steady-state sequence assessment of hip joint cartilage and labrum at 3 Tesla: comparative analysis of magnetic resonance imaging and intraoperative data

Musculoskeletal

Accuracy of bone mineral density quantification using dual-layer spectral detector CT: a phantom study

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System on CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging

Interventional

Mid-term outcomes after percutaneous cryoablation of symptomatic abdominal wall endometriosis: comparison with surgery alone in a single institution

Cardiac

Delayed contrast-enhanced computed tomography in patients with known or suspected cardiac sarcoidosis: A feasibility study