Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

Single-center versus multi-center biparametric MRI radiomics approach for clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer

Authors: Jeroen Bleker, Derya Yakar, Bram van Noort, Dennis Rouw, Igle Jan de Jong, Rudi A. J. O. Dierckx, Thomas C. Kwee, Henkjan Huisman

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate a previously developed radiomics-based biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) approach for discrimination of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer (PZ csPCa) using multi-center, multi-vendor (McMv) and single-center, single-vendor (ScSv) datasets.

Methods

This study’s starting point was a previously developed ScSv algorithm for PZ csPCa whose performance was demonstrated in a single-center dataset. A McMv dataset was collected, and 262 PZ PCa lesions (9 centers, 2 vendors) were selected to identically develop a multi-center algorithm. The single-center algorithm was then applied to the multi-center dataset (single–multi-validation), and the McMv algorithm was applied to both the multi-center dataset (multi–multi-validation) and the previously used single-center dataset (multi–single-validation). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the validations were compared using bootstrapping.

Results

Previously the single–single validation achieved an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.71–0.92), a significant performance reduction of 27.2% compared to the single–multi-validation AUC of 0.59 (95% CI 0.51–0.68). The new multi-center model achieved a multi–multi-validation AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.64–0.84). Compared to the multi–single-validation AUC of 0.66 (95% CI 0.56–0.75), the performance did not decrease significantly (p value: 0.114). Bootstrapped comparison showed similar single-center performances and a significantly different multi-center performance (p values: 0.03, 0.012).

Conclusions

A single-center trained radiomics-based bpMRI model does not generalize to multi-center data. Multi-center trained radiomics-based bpMRI models do generalize, have equal single-center performance and perform better on multi-center data.

Available only for authorised users

Siegel RL, Miller KD (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70:7–30 PubMed

Hofbauer SL, Kittner B, Maxeiner A et al (2018) Validation of PI-RADS version 2 for the detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 200:1–7CrossRef

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 389:815–822CrossRef

Stolk TT, De JIJ, Kwee TC et al (2019) False positives in PIRADS ( V2) 3, 4, and 5 lesions : relationship with reader experience and zonal location. Abdom Radiol (NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01919-2CrossRef

Castillo JM, Arif M, Niessen WJ, Schoots IG, Veenland JF (2020) Automated classification of significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review on the performance of machine learning applications. Cancers (Basel) 12:1–13CrossRef

Stanzione A, Gambardella M, Cuocolo R, Ponsiglione A, Romeo V, Imbriaco M (2020) Prostate MRI radiomics: a systematic review and radiomic quality score assessment. Eur J Radiol 129:109095 CrossRef

Aerts HJWL, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RTH et al (2014) Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 5:4006CrossRef

Schwier M, Van Griethu J, Vangel MG et al (2019) Repeatability of multiparametric prostate MRI radiomics features. Sci Rep 9:9441. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45766-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Zwanenburg A (2020) The image biomarker standardization initiative: standardized quantitative radiomics for high-throughput. Radiology 295(2):328–338 CrossRef

10.

Bleker J, Kwee TC, Dierckx RAJO, de Jong IJ, Huisman H, Yakar D (2020) Multiparametric MRI and auto-fixed volume of interest-based radiomics signature for clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 30:1313–1324CrossRef

11.

Litjens G, Debats O, Barentsz J, Karssemeijer N, Huisman H (2017) SPIE-AAPM PROSTATEx challenge data. In: Cancer imaging arch. https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/display/Public/SPIE-AAPM-NCI+PROSTATEx+Challenges. Accessed 1 Jun 2018

12.

Rizzo S, Botta F, Raimondi S et al (2018) Radiomics: the facts and the challenges of image analysis. Eur Radiol Exp 2:36CrossRef

13.

van Timmeren J, Cester D, Tanadini-Lang S et al (2020) Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection. Insights Imaging 11:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00887-2

14.

Turkbey B, Rosenkrantz AB, Haider MA et al (2019) Prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1: 2019 update of prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2. Eur Urol 76:340–351CrossRef

15.

Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL et al (2016) PI-RADS prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2. Eur Urol 69:16–40CrossRef

16.

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 40:244–252CrossRef

17.

Cuocolo R, Stanzione A, Castaldo A, De Lucia DR, Imbriaco M (2021) Quality control and whole-gland, zonal and lesion annotations for the PROSTATEx challenge public dataset. Eur J Radiol 138:109647CrossRef

18.

Bennasar M, Hicks Y, Setchi R (2015) Feature selection using joint mutual information maximisation. Expert Syst Appl 42:8520–8532CrossRef

19.

Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: KDD '16: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

20.

Bergstra J, Yamins D, Cox D (2013) Making a science of model search: hyperparameter optimization in hundreds of dimensions for vision architectures. In: TProceedings of the 30th international conference on machine learning (ICML 2013), pp I-115–I-23

21.

Akiba T, Sano S, Yanase T, Ohta T, Koyama M (2019) Optuna: a next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pp 2623–2631

22.

Turck N, Vutskits L, Sanchez-Pena P et al (2011) pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinform 8:12–77

23.

Berenguer R, Pastor-juan MR, Canales-vázquez J (2018) Radiomics of CT features may be nonreproducible and redundant: influence of CT acquisition parameters. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018172361CrossRefPubMed

24.

Um H, Tixier F, Bermudez D, Deasy JO, Young RJ, Veeraraghavan H (2019) Impact of image preprocessing on the scanner dependence of multi-parametric MRI radiomic features and covariate shift in multi-institutional glioblastoma datasets Impact of image preprocessing on the scanner dependence of multi-parametric MRI radiomic fea. Phys Med Biol. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab2f44CrossRefPubMed

25.

Castillo TJM, Starmans MPA, Arif M et al (2021) A multi-center, multi-vendor study to evaluate the generalizability of a radiomics model for classifying prostate cancer: high grade vs low grade. Diagnostics 11:369CrossRef

26.

Bourbonne V, Fournier G, Valli M et al (2020) External validation of an MRI-derived radiomics model to predict biochemical recurrence after surgery for high-risk prostate cancer. Cancers (Basel) 12:814CrossRef

27.

Orlhac F, Lecler A, Savatovski J et al (2020) How can we combat multicenter variability in MR radiomics ? Validation of a correction procedure. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-07284-9CrossRefPubMed

28.

Lee JJ, Thomas IC, Nolley R, Ferrari M, Brooks JD, Leppert JT (2015) Biologic differences between peripheral and transition zone prostate cancer. Prostate 75:183–190CrossRef

29.

Ligero M, Jordi-Ollero O, Bernatowicz K et al (2021) Minimizing acquisition-related radiomics variability by image resampling and batch effect correction to allow for large-scale data analysis. Eur Radiol 31:1460–1470CrossRef

30.

Delli Pizzi A, Chiarelli AM, Chiacchiaretta P et al (2021) MRI-based clinical-radiomics model predicts tumor response before treatment in locally advanced rectal cancer. Sci Rep 11:5379CrossRef

Title: Single-center versus multi-center biparametric MRI radiomics approach for clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer
Authors: Jeroen Bleker
Derya Yakar
Bram van Noort
Dennis Rouw
Igle Jan de Jong
Rudi A. J. O. Dierckx
Thomas C. Kwee
Henkjan Huisman
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Prostate Cancer
Prostate Cancer
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01099-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Single-center versus multi-center biparametric MRI radiomics approach for clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Optimization of contrast medium volume for abdominal CT in oncologic patients: prospective comparison between fixed and lean body weight-adapted dosing protocols

Workload of diagnostic radiologists in the foreseeable future based on recent scientific advances: growth expectations and role of artificial intelligence

Standardisation of prostate multiparametric MRI across a hospital network: a London experience

Clinical and imaging features of carcinosarcoma of the uterus and cervix

Accuracy of shear wave elastography in characterization of thyroid nodules in children and adolescents

Appearance of the levator ani muscle subdivisions on 3D transperineal ultrasound