6 research outputs found
Histological Validation of in-vivo VERDICT MRI for Prostate using 3D Personalised Moulds
VERDICT analysis can successfully distinguish benign from malignant prostate tissue in-vivo showing promising results as a cancer diagnostic tool. However, the accuracy with which model parameters reflect the underlying tissue characteristics is unknown. In this study, we quantitatively compare the intracellular, extracellular-extravascular and vascular volume fractions derived from in-vivo VERDICT MRI against histological measurements from prostatectomies. We use 3D-printed personalised moulds designed from in-vivo MRI that help preserve the orientation and location of the gland and aid histological alignment. Results from the first samples using the 3D mould pipeline show good agreement between in-vivo VERDICT estimates and histology
Recommended from our members
Similarities and differences between Likert and PIRADS v2.1 scores of prostate multiparametric MRI: a pictorial review of histology-validated cases.
The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2019 "Prostate cancer: diagnosis and management" guidelines have recommended that all patients suspected of prostate cancer undergo multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) prior to biopsy. The Likert scoring system is advocated for mpMRI reporting based on multicentre studies that have demonstrated its effectiveness within the National Health Service (NHS). In recent years, there has been considerable drive towards standardised prostate reporting, which led to the development of "Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System" (PI-RADS). The PI-RADS system has been adopted by the majority of European countries and within the US. This paper reviews these systems indicating the similarities and specific differences that exist between PI-RADS and Likert assessment through a series of histologically proven clinical cases.A.L. was supported by a Cancer Research UK/Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (CRUK/EPSRC) award (C1519/A10331 and C1519/A16463) from the University College London/Kings College London (UCL/KCL) Comprehensive Cancer Imaging Centre (CCIC). This work was undertaken at the Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), University College London Hospital (UCLH), which received a proportion of the funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
Multi-parametric MRI zone-specific diagnostic model performance compared with experienced radiologists for detection of prostate cancer
OBJECTIVES: Compare the performance of zone-specific multi-parametric-MRI (mp-MRI) diagnostic models in prostate cancer detection with experienced radiologists. METHODS: A single-centre, IRB approved, prospective STARD compliant 3 T MRI test dataset of 203 patients was generated to test validity and generalisability of previously reported 1.5 T mp-MRI diagnostic models. All patients included within the test dataset underwent 3 T mp-MRI, comprising T2, diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging followed by transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy. Separate diagnostic models (transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ)) were applied to respective zones. Sensitivity/specificity and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) were calculated for the two zone-specific models. Two radiologists (A and B) independently Likert scored test 3 T mp-MRI dataset, allowing ROC analysis for each radiologist for each prostate zone. RESULTS: Diagnostic models applied to the test dataset demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.74 (95% CI 0.67-0.81) in the PZ and 0.68 (95% CI 0.61-0.75) in the TZ. Radiologist A/B had a ROC-AUC = 0.78/0.74 in the PZ and 0.69/0.69 in the TZ. Radiologists A and B each scored 51 patients in the PZ and 41 and 45 patients respectively in the TZ as Likert 3. The PZ model demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.65/0.67 for the patients Likert scored as indeterminate by radiologist A/B respectively, whereas the TZ model demonstrated a ROC-AUC = 0.74/0.69. CONCLUSION: Zone-specific mp-MRI diagnostic models demonstrate generalisability between 1.5 and 3 T mp-MRI protocols and show similar classification performance to experienced radiologists for prostate cancer detection. Results also indicate the ability of diagnostic models to classify cases with an indeterminate radiologist score. KEY POINTS: • MRI diagnostic models had similar performance to experienced radiologists for classification of prostate cancer. • MRI diagnostic models may help radiologists classify tumour in patients with indeterminate Likert 3 scores
Machine learning classifiers can predict Gleason pattern 4 prostate cancer with greater accuracy than experienced radiologists
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was: To test whether machine learning classifiers for transition zone (TZ) and peripheral zone (PZ) can correctly classify prostate tumors into those with/without a Gleason 4 component, and to compare the performance of the best performing classifiers against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively acquired data was performed at a single center between 2012 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were (i) 3-T mp-MRI compliant with international guidelines, (ii) Likert ≥ 3/5 lesion, (iii) transperineal template ± targeted index lesion biopsy confirming cancer ≥ Gleason 3 + 3. Index lesions from 164 men were analyzed (119 PZ, 45 TZ). Quantitative MRI and clinical features were used and zone-specific machine learning classifiers were constructed. Models were validated using a fivefold cross-validation and a temporally separated patient cohort. Classifier performance was compared against the opinion of three board-certified radiologists. RESULTS: The best PZ classifier trained with prostate-specific antigen density, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and maximum enhancement (ME) on DCE-MRI obtained a ROC area under the curve (AUC) of 0.83 following fivefold cross-validation. Diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity was higher for the best PZ model (0.93) when compared with the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.72). The best TZ model used ADC and ME to obtain an AUC of 0.75 following fivefold cross-validation. This achieved higher diagnostic sensitivity at 50% threshold of specificity (0.88) than the mean sensitivity of the three radiologists (0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning classifiers predict Gleason pattern 4 in prostate tumors better than radiologists. KEY POINTS: • Predictive models developed from quantitative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging regarding the characterization of prostate cancer grade should be zone-specific. • Classifiers trained differently for peripheral and transition zone can predict a Gleason 4 component with a higher performance than the subjective opinion of experienced radiologists. • Classifiers would be particularly useful in the context of active surveillance, whereby decisions regarding whether to biopsy are necessitated
Evaluation of image‐based prognostic parameters of post‐prostatectomy urinary incontinence: A literature review
Abstract: Prostate cancer is the second most common male cancer, and radical prostatectomy is a highly effective treatment for intermediate and high‐risk disease. However, post‐prostatectomy urinary incontinence remains a major functional side‐effect in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Despite recent improvements in preoperative imaging quality and surgical techniques, it remains challenging to predict or prevent occurrence of this complication. The aim of this research was to review the current published literature on pre‐ and postoperative imaging evaluation of the prostate and pelvic structures, to identify added value in the prediction of post‐prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A computerized bibliographic search of the PubMed library was carried out to identify imaging‐based articles evaluating the pelvic floor and surrounding structures pre‐ and/or postradical prostatectomy to predict post‐prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A total of 32 articles were included. Of these, 29 papers assessed the importance of magnetic resonance imaging evaluation, with a total of 16 parameters evaluated. The most common parameters were intravesical protrusion, the membranous urethral length, prostatic volume and periurethral fibrosis. Preoperative membranous urethral length and its preservation after surgery showed the strongest correlation with urinary incontinence. Three studies evaluated ultrasound, with all carried out postoperatively. This technique benefits from a dynamic evaluation, and the results are promising for proximal urethral hypermobility and the degree of bladder neck funneling on the Valsalva maneuver. Several imaging studies evaluated the predictors of post‐prostatectomy urinary incontinence, with preoperative membranous urethral length offering the most promise. However, the current literature is limited by the single‐center nature of studies, and the heterogeneity in patient populations and methodologies used