A survey on computational intelligence approaches for predictive modeling in prostate cancer

Predictive modeling in medicine involves the development of computational models which are capable of analysing large amounts of data in order to predict healthcare outcomes for individual patients. Computational intelligence approaches are suitable when the data to be modelled are too complex forconventional statistical techniques to process quickly and eciently. These advanced approaches are based on mathematical models that have been especially developed for dealing with the uncertainty and imprecision which is typically found in clinical and biological datasets. This paper provides a survey of recent work on computational intelligence approaches that have been applied to prostate cancer predictive modeling, and considers the challenges which need to be addressed. In particular, the paper considers a broad definition of computational intelligence which includes evolutionary algorithms (also known asmetaheuristic optimisation, nature inspired optimisation algorithms), Artificial Neural Networks, Deep Learning, Fuzzy based approaches, and hybrids of these,as well as Bayesian based approaches, and Markov models. Metaheuristic optimisation approaches, such as the Ant Colony Optimisation, Particle Swarm Optimisation, and Artificial Immune Network have been utilised for optimising the performance of prostate cancer predictive models, and the suitability of these approaches are discussed

Advanced Computational Methods for Oncological Image Analysis

[Cancer is the second most common cause of death worldwide and encompasses highly variable clinical and biological scenarios. Some of the current clinical challenges are (i) early diagnosis of the disease and (ii) precision medicine, which allows for treatments targeted to specific clinical cases. The ultimate goal is to optimize the clinical workflow by combining accurate diagnosis with the most suitable therapies. Toward this, large-scale machine learning research can define associations among clinical, imaging, and multi-omics studies, making it possible to provide reliable diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for precision oncology. Such reliable computer-assisted methods (i.e., artificial intelligence) together with clinicians’ unique knowledge can be used to properly handle typical issues in evaluation/quantification procedures (i.e., operator dependence and time-consuming tasks). These technical advances can significantly improve result repeatability in disease diagnosis and guide toward appropriate cancer care. Indeed, the need to apply machine learning and computational intelligence techniques has steadily increased to effectively perform image processing operations—such as segmentation, co-registration, classification, and dimensionality reduction—and multi-omics data integration.

The impact of arterial input function determination variations on prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic modeling: a multicenter data analysis challenge, part II

This multicenter study evaluated the effect of variations in arterial input function (AIF) determination on pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) data using the shutter-speed model (SSM). Data acquired from eleven prostate cancer patients were shared among nine centers. Each center used a site-specific method to measure the individual AIF from each data set and submitted the results to the managing center. These AIFs, their reference tissue-adjusted variants, and a literature population-averaged AIF, were used by the managing center to perform SSM PK analysis to estimate Ktrans (volume transfer rate constant), ve (extravascular, extracellular volume fraction), kep (efflux rate constant), and τi (mean intracellular water lifetime). All other variables, including the definition of the tumor region of interest and precontrast T1 values, were kept the same to evaluate parameter variations caused by variations in only the AIF. Considerable PK parameter variations were observed with within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) values of 0.58, 0.27, 0.42, and 0.24 for Ktrans, ve, kep, and τi, respectively, using the unadjusted AIFs. Use of the reference tissue-adjusted AIFs reduced variations in Ktrans and ve (wCV = 0.50 and 0.10, respectively), but had smaller effects on kep and τi (wCV = 0.39 and 0.22, respectively). kep is less sensitive to AIF variation than Ktrans, suggesting it may be a more robust imaging biomarker of prostate microvasculature. With low sensitivity to AIF uncertainty, the SSM-unique τi parameter may have advantages over the conventional PK parameters in a longitudinal study