Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 11/2020

01-11-2020 | Prostate Cancer | Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

Clinico-radiological characteristic-based machine learning in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies of PI-RADS 3 lesions with dual validation

Authors: Yansheng Kan, Qing Zhang, Jiange Hao, Wei Wang, Junlong Zhuang, Jie Gao, Haifeng Huang, Jing Liang, Giancarlo Marra, Giorgio Calleris, Marco Oderda, Xiaozhi Zhao, Paolo Gontero, Hongqian Guo

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 11/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate machine learning–based classifiers in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score 3 lesions.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 346 patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions at two institutions. All patients underwent prostate multiparameter MRI (mpMRI) and transperineal MRI-ultrasonography (MRI-US)-targeted biopsy. We collected data on age, pre-biopsy serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, prostate volume (PV), PSA density (PSAD), the location of suspicious PI-RADS 3 lesions, and histopathology results. Four machine learning–based classifiers—logistic regression, support vector machine, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and random forest—were trained using datasets from Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. External validation was carried out using datasets from Molinette Hospital.

Results

Among 287 PI-RADS 3 patients, prostate cancer was proven pathologically in 59 (20.6%), and 228 (79.4%) had benign lesions. For 380 PI-RADS 3 lesions, 81 (21.3%) were proven to be PCa and 299 (78.7%) benign. Among four classifiers, the random forest classifier had the best performance in both patient-based and lesion-based datasets, with overall accuracy of 0.713 and 0.860, sensitivity of 0.857 and 0.613, and area under curve (AUC) of 0.771 and 0.832, respectively. In external validation, our best classifiers had an AUC of 0.688 with the best sensitivity (0.870) and specificity (0.500) in the 59 PI-RADS 3 patients in Molinette Hospital dataset.

Conclusions

The machine learning–based random forest classifier provided a reliable probability if a PI-RADS 3 patient was benign.

Key Points

Machine learning–based classifiers could combine the clinical characteristics with accessible information on image report of PI-RADS 3 patient to generate a probability of malignancy.
This probability could assist surgeons to make diagnostic decisions with more confidence and higher efficiency.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wong MC, Goggins WB, Wang HH et al (2016) Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 70(5):862–874PubMedCrossRef Wong MC, Goggins WB, Wang HH et al (2016) Global incidence and mortality for prostate cancer: analysis of temporal patterns and trends in 36 countries. Eur Urol 70(5):862–874PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD et al (2016) Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 66(2):115–132PubMedCrossRef Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD et al (2016) Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 66(2):115–132PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69(1):41–49PubMedCrossRef Barentsz JO, Weinreb JC, Verma S et al (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69(1):41–49PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822CrossRef Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822CrossRef
5.
go back to reference van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578PubMedCrossRef van der Leest M, Cornel E, Israel B et al (2019) Head-to-head comparison of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy versus multiparametric prostate resonance imaging with subsequent magnetic resonance-guided biopsy in biopsy-naive men with elevated prostate-specific antigen: a large prospective multicenter clinical study. Eur Urol 75(4):570–578PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG et al (2017) Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 73(3):353–360 Venderink W, van Luijtelaar A, Bomers JG et al (2017) Results of targeted biopsy in men with magnetic resonance imaging lesions classified equivocal, likely or highly likely to be clinically significant prostate cancer. Eur Urol 73(3):353–360
7.
go back to reference Hermie I, Van Besien J, De Visschere P, Lumen N, Decaestecker K (2019) Which clinical and radiological characteristics can predict clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions? A retrospective study in a high-volume academic center. Eur J Radiol 114:92–98PubMedCrossRef Hermie I, Van Besien J, De Visschere P, Lumen N, Decaestecker K (2019) Which clinical and radiological characteristics can predict clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions? A retrospective study in a high-volume academic center. Eur J Radiol 114:92–98PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Bektas CT, Kocak B, Yardimci AH et al (2019) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: machine learning-based quantitative computed tomography texture analysis for prediction of Fuhrman nuclear grade. Eur Radiol 29(3):1153–1163PubMedCrossRef Bektas CT, Kocak B, Yardimci AH et al (2019) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: machine learning-based quantitative computed tomography texture analysis for prediction of Fuhrman nuclear grade. Eur Radiol 29(3):1153–1163PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Yao L, Cai M, Chen Y, Shen C, Shi L, Guo Y (2019) Prediction of antiepileptic drug treatment outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy by machine learning. Epilepsy Behav 96:92–97PubMedCrossRef Yao L, Cai M, Chen Y, Shen C, Shi L, Guo Y (2019) Prediction of antiepileptic drug treatment outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy by machine learning. Epilepsy Behav 96:92–97PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ambale-Venkatesh B, Yang X, Wu CO et al (2017) Cardiovascular event prediction by machine learning: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Circ Res 121(9):1092–1101PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ambale-Venkatesh B, Yang X, Wu CO et al (2017) Cardiovascular event prediction by machine learning: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Circ Res 121(9):1092–1101PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Schelb P, Kohl S, Radtke JP et al (2019) Classification of cancer at prostate MRI: deep learning versus clinical PI-RADS assessment. Radiology 293(3):607–617PubMedCrossRef Schelb P, Kohl S, Radtke JP et al (2019) Classification of cancer at prostate MRI: deep learning versus clinical PI-RADS assessment. Radiology 293(3):607–617PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Huang H, Wang W, Lin T et al (2016) Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy. BMC Urol 16(1):68PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Huang H, Wang W, Lin T et al (2016) Comparison of the complications of traditional 12 cores transrectal prostate biopsy with image fusion guided transperineal prostate biopsy. BMC Urol 16(1):68PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252PubMed Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, Delahunt B, Srigley JR, Humphrey PA (2016) The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 40(2):244–252PubMed
14.
go back to reference Fabian Pedregosa GV, Gramfort A, Michel V et al (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830 Fabian Pedregosa GV, Gramfort A, Michel V et al (2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J Mach Learn Res 12:2825–2830
15.
go back to reference Tolles J, Meurer WJ (2016) Logistic regression: relating patient characteristics to outcomes. JAMA 316(5):533–534PubMedCrossRef Tolles J, Meurer WJ (2016) Logistic regression: relating patient characteristics to outcomes. JAMA 316(5):533–534PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Huang S, Cai N, Pacheco PP, Narrandes S, Wang Y, Xu W (2018) Applications of support vector machine (SVM) learning in cancer genomics. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 15(1):41–51PubMed Huang S, Cai N, Pacheco PP, Narrandes S, Wang Y, Xu W (2018) Applications of support vector machine (SVM) learning in cancer genomics. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 15(1):41–51PubMed
19.
go back to reference Pavey TG, Gilson ND, Gomersall SR, Clark B, Trost SG (2017) Field evaluation of a random forest activity classifier for wrist-worn accelerometer data. J Sci Med Sport 20(1):75–80PubMedCrossRef Pavey TG, Gilson ND, Gomersall SR, Clark B, Trost SG (2017) Field evaluation of a random forest activity classifier for wrist-worn accelerometer data. J Sci Med Sport 20(1):75–80PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39(4):561–577PubMedCrossRef Zweig MH, Campbell G (1993) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. Clin Chem 39(4):561–577PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ruuska S, Hamalainen W, Kajava S, Mughal M, Matilainen P, Mononen J (2018) Evaluation of the confusion matrix method in the validation of an automated system for measuring feeding behaviour of cattle. Behav Processes 148:56–62PubMedCrossRef Ruuska S, Hamalainen W, Kajava S, Mughal M, Matilainen P, Mononen J (2018) Evaluation of the confusion matrix method in the validation of an automated system for measuring feeding behaviour of cattle. Behav Processes 148:56–62PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hansen NL, Koo BC, Warren AY, Kastner C, Barrett T (2017) Sub-differentiating equivocal PI-RADS-3 lesions in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate to improve cancer detection. Eur J Radiol 95:307–313PubMedCrossRef Hansen NL, Koo BC, Warren AY, Kastner C, Barrett T (2017) Sub-differentiating equivocal PI-RADS-3 lesions in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate to improve cancer detection. Eur J Radiol 95:307–313PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS et al (2018) Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3 (equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210(2):347–357PubMedCrossRef Sheridan AD, Nath SK, Syed JS et al (2018) Risk of clinically significant prostate cancer associated with prostate imaging reporting and data system category 3 (equivocal) lesions identified on multiparametric prostate MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 210(2):347–357PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Clinico-radiological characteristic-based machine learning in reducing unnecessary prostate biopsies of PI-RADS 3 lesions with dual validation
Authors
Yansheng Kan
Qing Zhang
Jiange Hao
Wei Wang
Junlong Zhuang
Jie Gao
Haifeng Huang
Jing Liang
Giancarlo Marra
Giorgio Calleris
Marco Oderda
Xiaozhi Zhao
Paolo Gontero
Hongqian Guo
Publication date
01-11-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 11/2020
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06958-8

Other articles of this Issue 11/2020

European Radiology 11/2020 Go to the issue