Quality of Multicenter Studies Using MRI Radiomics for Diagnosing Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer:A Systematic Review

Background: Reproducibility and generalization are major challenges for clinically significant prostate cancer modeling using MRI radiomics. Multicenter data seem indispensable to deal with these challenges, but the quality of such studies is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to systematically review the quality of multicenter studies on MRI radiomics for diagnosing clinically significant PCa. Methods: This systematic review followed the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Multicenter studies investigating the value of MRI radiomics for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer were included. Quality was assessed using the checklist for artificial intelligence in medical imaging (CLAIM) and the radiomics quality score (RQS). CLAIM consisted of 42 equally important items referencing different elements of good practice AI in medical imaging. RQS consisted of 36 points awarded over 16 items related to good practice radiomics. Final CLAIM and RQS scores were percentage-based, allowing for a total quality score consisting of the average of CLAIM and RQS. Results: Four studies were included. The average total CLAIM score was 74.6% and the average RQS was 52.8%. The corresponding average total quality score (CLAIM + RQS) was 63.7%. Conclusions: A very small number of multicenter radiomics PCa classification studies have been performed with the existing studies being of bad or average quality. Good multicenter studies might increase by encouraging preferably prospective data sharing and paying extra care to documentation in regards to reproducibility and clinical utility

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

Contains fulltext : 239809.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access

A deep learning masked segmentation alternative to manual segmentation in biparametric MRI prostate cancer radiomics

OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of a deep learning masked (DLM) auto-fixed volume of interest (VOI) segmentation method as an alternative to manual segmentation for radiomics-based diagnosis of clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer (PCa) on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included a retrospective multi-center dataset of 524 PCa lesions (of which 204 are CS PCa) on bpMRI. All lesions were both semi-automatically segmented with a DLM auto-fixed VOI method (averaging < 10 s per lesion) and manually segmented by an expert uroradiologist (averaging 5 min per lesion). The DLM auto-fixed VOI method uses a spherical VOI (with its center at the location of the lowest apparent diffusion coefficient of the prostate lesion as indicated with a single mouse click) from which non-prostate voxels are removed using a deep learning-based prostate segmentation algorithm. Thirteen different DLM auto-fixed VOI diameters (ranging from 6 to 30 mm) were explored. Extracted radiomics data were split into training and test sets (4:1 ratio). Performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: In the test set, the area under the ROC curve (AUCs) of the DLM auto-fixed VOI method with a VOI diameter of 18 mm (0.76 [95% CI: 0.66-0.85]) was significantly higher (p = 0.0198) than that of the manual segmentation method (0.62 [95% CI: 0.52-0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: A DLM auto-fixed VOI segmentation can provide a potentially more accurate radiomics diagnosis of CS PCa than expert manual segmentation while also reducing expert time investment by more than 97%. KEY POINTS: * Compared to traditional expert-based segmentation, a deep learning mask (DLM) auto-fixed VOI placement is more accurate at detecting CS PCa. * Compared to traditional expert-based segmentation, a DLM auto-fixed VOI placement is faster and can result in a 97% time reduction. * Applying deep learning to an auto-fixed VOI radiomics approach can be valuable

The Value and Challenges of Radiomics Artificial Intelligence for Magnetic Resonance Based Prostate Cancer Imaging

The accuracy of the diagnosis and detection of prostate cancer is not yet where we want it to be. Radiomics AI can help elevate it to a standard where patients have a smaller chance to be burdened by false positive or false negative results. While useability, reproducibility and generalization are persisting limiting factors, this thesis presents several solutions and shows that radiomics AI has significant value besides traditional visual assessment of prostate cancer

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

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