Prostate cancer heterogeneity: texture analysis score based on multiple magnetic resonance imaging sequences for detection, stratification and selection of lesions at time of biopsy

To undertake an early proof‐of‐concept study on a novel, semi‐automated texture‐based scoring system in order to enhance the association between magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) lesions and clinically significant prostate cancer (SPCa).

[1]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[2]  P. Walsh,et al.  Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (stage T1c) prostate cancer. , 1994, JAMA.

[3]  J. Nelson,et al.  Prostate cancer: radical prostatectomy. , 2003, The Urologic clinics of North America.

[4]  F. Cendes,et al.  Texture analysis of medical images. , 2004, Clinical radiology.

[5]  H. Huisman,et al.  Computerized whole slide quantification shows increased microvascular density in pT2 prostate cancer as compared to normal prostate tissue , 2009, The Prostate.

[6]  G. Netto.  Tumor volume threshold of insignificant prostate cancer--was Dr. Stamey right all along? , 2011, The Journal of urology.

[7]  B. Carey,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging for the detection, localisation, and characterisation of prostate cancer: recommendations from a European consensus meeting. , 2011, European urology.

[8]  G. Haber,et al.  Role of magnetic resonance imaging before initial biopsy: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging‐targeted and systematic biopsy for significant prostate cancer detection , 2011, BJU international.

[9]  A. Oto,et al.  Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  S. Verma,et al.  Assessment of aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with histologic grade after radical prostatectomy. , 2011, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  J. Fütterer,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines 2012 , 2012, European Radiology.

[12]  S. Mendrinos,et al.  Prostate cancer foci detected on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging are histologically distinct from those not detected. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[13]  J. Gohagan,et al.  Prostate cancer screening in the randomized Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial: mortality results after 13 years of follow-up. , 2012, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  M. Schouten,et al.  ESUR prostate MR guidelines. Author reply. , 2013, European radiology.

[15]  J. Babb,et al.  Prostate cancer localization using multiparametric MR imaging: comparison of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) and Likert scales. , 2013, Radiology.

[16]  T. Tammela,et al.  Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up , 2014, The Lancet.

[17]  H. Huisman,et al.  Correlation between dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and quantitative histopathologic microvascular parameters in organ-confined prostate cancer , 2014, European Radiology.

[18]  Dimitri Van De Ville,et al.  Three-dimensional solid texture analysis in biomedical imaging: Review and opportunities , 2014, Medical Image Anal..

[19]  Justin M Ream,et al.  Prostate Cancer: Utility of Whole-Lesion Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Metrics for Prediction of Biochemical Recurrence After Radical Prostatectomy. , 2015, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  J. Fütterer,et al.  Can Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Be Detected with Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging? A Systematic Review of the Literature. , 2015, European urology.

[21]  M. Stasi,et al.  Texture features on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: new potential biomarkers for prostate cancer aggressiveness , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  H. Hricak,et al.  Haralick texture analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non-cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating prostate cancers with different Gleason scores , 2015, European Radiology.

[23]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[24]  H. Rusinek,et al.  Whole‐lesion apparent diffusion coefficient metrics as a marker of percentage Gleason 4 component within Gleason 7 prostate cancer at radical prostatectomy , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[25]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  The Molecular Taxonomy of Primary Prostate Cancer , 2015, Cell.

[26]  Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi,et al.  V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentation , 2016, 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV).

[27]  A. Shalhav,et al.  Prognostic Significance of Percentage and Architectural Types of Contemporary Gleason Pattern 4 Prostate Cancer in Radical Prostatectomy , 2016, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[28]  Hanlee P. Ji,et al.  Pan-cancer analysis of the extent and consequences of intratumor heterogeneity , 2015, Nature Medicine.

[29]  A. Ouzzane,et al.  Impact of arterial input function selection on the accuracy of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI quantitative analysis for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[30]  Adam T Froemming,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. , 2016, Radiology.

[31]  D. Margolis,et al.  PI-RADS Prostate Imaging - Reporting and Data System: 2015, Version 2. , 2016, European urology.

[32]  Justin M Ream,et al.  Likert score 3 prostate lesions: Association between whole‐lesion ADC metrics and pathologic findings at MRI/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy , 2016, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[33]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data , 2015, Radiology.

[34]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  “Textural analysis of multiparametric MRI detects transition zone prostate cancer” , 2016, European Radiology.

[35]  B. Delahunt,et al.  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 , 2015, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[36]  E. Messing,et al.  Impact of Gleason Subtype on Prostate Cancer Detection Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Correlation with Final Histopathology , 2017, The Journal of urology.

[37]  Eun Sook Ko,et al.  Breast cancer heterogeneity: MR Imaging Texture Analysis and Survival Outcomes1 , 2016 .

[38]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis , 2017, Medical Image Anal..

[39]  D. Dong,et al.  Radiomics Features of Multiparametric MRI as Novel Prognostic Factors in Advanced Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma , 2017, Clinical Cancer Research.

[40]  B. Taouli,et al.  Quantification of hepatocellular carcinoma heterogeneity with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[41]  P. Carroll,et al.  Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. , 2017, European urology.

[42]  M. Parmar,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confi rmatory study , 2018 .

[43]  A. D'Amico.  Active Surveillance Versus Treatment of Prostate Cancer: Should Metastasis Be the Primary End Point? , 2017, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[44]  H. G. van der Poel,et al.  What Is the Negative Predictive Value of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Excluding Prostate Cancer at Biopsy? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis from the European Association of Urology Prostate Cancer Guidelines Panel. , 2017, European urology.

[45]  L. Hooft,et al.  Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique? , 2017, European urology.

[46]  Adam D. DePriest,et al.  Intratumoral and Intertumoral Genomic Heterogeneity of Multifocal Localized Prostate Cancer Impacts Molecular Classifications and Genomic Prognosticators. , 2017, European urology.

[47]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Radiomic features for prostate cancer detection on MRI differ between the transition and peripheral zones: Preliminary findings from a multi‐institutional study , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[48]  Stuart A. Taylor,et al.  Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies , 2016, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[49]  P. Sooriakumaran,et al.  Tumour heterogeneity poses a significant challenge to cancer biomarker research , 2017, British Journal of Cancer.

[50]  P. Lambin,et al.  Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine , 2017, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[51]  J. Sterne,et al.  Effect of a Low-Intensity PSA-Based Screening Intervention on Prostate Cancer Mortality: The CAP Randomized Clinical Trial , 2018, JAMA.

[52]  Christopher Joseph Pal,et al.  Learning normalized inputs for iterative estimation in medical image segmentation , 2017, Medical Image Anal..

[53]  D. Margolis,et al.  MRI‐Targeted or Standard Biopsy for Prostate‐Cancer Diagnosis , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.