Distinguishing prostate cancer from benign confounders via a cascaded classifier on multi-parametric MRI

Learning how to separate benign confounders from prostate cancer is important because the imaging characteristics of these confounders are poorly understood. Furthermore, the typical representations of the MRI parameters might not be enough to allow discrimination. The diagnostic uncertainty this causes leads to a lower diagnostic accuracy. In this paper a new cascaded classifier is introduced to separate prostate cancer and benign confounders on MRI in conjunction with specific computer-extracted features to distinguish each of the benign classes (benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), inflammation, atrophy or prostatic intra-epithelial neoplasia (PIN). In this study we tried to (1) calculate different mathematical representations of the MRI parameters which more clearly express subtle differences between different classes, (2) learn which of the MRI image features will allow to distinguish specific benign confounders from prostate cancer, and (2) find the combination of computer-extracted MRI features to best discriminate cancer from the confounding classes using a cascaded classifier. One of the most important requirements for identifying MRI signatures for adenocarcinoma, BPH, atrophy, inflammation, and PIN is accurate mapping of the location and spatial extent of the confounder and cancer categories from ex vivo histopathology to MRI. Towards this end we employed an annotated prostatectomy data set of 31 patients, all of whom underwent a multi-parametric 3 Tesla MRI prior to radical prostatectomy. The prostatectomy slides were carefully co-registered to the corresponding MRI slices using an elastic registration technique. We extracted texture features from the T2-weighted imaging, pharmacokinetic features from the dynamic contrast enhanced imaging and diffusion features from the diffusion-weighted imaging for each of the confounder classes and prostate cancer. These features were selected because they form the mainstay of clinical diagnosis. Relevant features for each of the classes were selected using maximum relevance minimum redundancy feature selection, allowing us to perform classifier independent feature selection. The selected features were then incorporated in a cascading classifier, which can focus on easier sub-tasks at each stage, leaving the more difficult classification tasks for later stages. Results show that distinct features are relevant for each of the benign classes, for example the fraction of extra-vascular, extra-cellular space in a voxel is a clear discriminator for inflammation. Furthermore, the cascaded classifier outperforms both multi-class and one-shot classifiers in overall accuracy for discriminating confounders from cancer: 0.76 versus 0.71 and 0.62.

[1]  David J. Field,et al.  Sparse coding with an overcomplete basis set: A strategy employed by V1? , 1997, Vision Research.

[2]  M. Knopp,et al.  Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast‐enhanced t1‐weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: Standardized quantities and symbols , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[3]  Masoom A. Haider,et al.  Prostate Cancer Localization With Multispectral MRI Using Cost-Sensitive Support Vector Machines and Conditional Random Fields , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[4]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Multi-kernel graph embedding for detection, Gleason grading of prostate cancer via MRI/MRS , 2013, Medical Image Anal..

[5]  Andrew B Rosenkrantz,et al.  Radiologist, be aware: ten pitfalls that confound the interpretation of multiparametric prostate MRI. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Computer-assisted analysis of peripheral zone prostate lesions using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI , 2010, Physics in medicine and biology.

[7]  Emilie Niaf,et al.  Influence of imaging and histological factors on prostate cancer detection and localisation on multiparametric MRI: a prospective study , 2013, European Radiology.

[8]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Automated computer-aided detection of prostate cancer in MR images: from a whole-organ to a zone-based approach , 2012, Medical Imaging.

[9]  P. Box Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer , 2011 .

[10]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors have significantly different quantitative imaging signatures on 3 tesla endorectal, in vivo T2‐weighted MR imagery , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[11]  H. Huisman,et al.  Accurate estimation of pharmacokinetic contrast‐enhanced dynamic MRI parameters of the prostate , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[12]  P Tiwari,et al.  Multimodal wavelet embedding representation for data combination (MaWERiC): integrating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prostate cancer detection , 2012, NMR in biomedicine.

[13]  W. A. Gardner,et al.  Atrophy and proliferation in the young adult prostate. , 1987, The Journal of urology.

[14]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Determining histology-MRI slice correspondences for defining MRI-based disease signatures of prostate cancer , 2011, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[15]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  A Pattern Recognition Approach to Zonal Segmentation of the Prostate on MRI , 2012, MICCAI.

[16]  Geoffrey McLennan,et al.  Establishing a normative atlas of the human lung: intersubject warping and registration of volumetric CT images. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[17]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer by using diffusion-weighted MR imaging and MR-guided biopsy at 3 T. , 2013, Radiology.

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

[19]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  In vivo assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging at 3 T with an endorectal coil. , 2011, European urology.

[20]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancer: detection and localization with 3-T multiparametric MR imaging. , 2013, Radiology.

[21]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Prostate cancer: differentiation of central gland cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia by using diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2010, Radiology.

[22]  Jane Labadin,et al.  Feature selection based on mutual information , 2015, 2015 9th International Conference on IT in Asia (CITA).

[23]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Automatic computer-aided detection of prostate cancer based on multiparametric magnetic resonance image analysis , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[24]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Cascaded discrimination of normal, abnormal, and confounder classes in histopathology: Gleason grading of prostate cancer , 2012, BMC Bioinformatics.

[25]  Carole Lartizien,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI , 2012, Physics in medicine and biology.

[26]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  HistoStitcher©: An interactive program for accurate and rapid reconstruction of digitized whole histological sections from tissue fragments , 2011, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[27]  Masoom A Haider,et al.  Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. , 2007, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[28]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Identifying in vivo DCE MRI parameters correlated with ex vivo quantitative microvessel architecture: A radiohistomorphometric approach , 2013, Medical Imaging.

[29]  Weijun Peng,et al.  Differentiation of central gland prostate cancer from benign prostatic hyperplasia using monoexponential and biexponential diffusion-weighted imaging. , 2013, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[30]  M. Rifkin,et al.  MR imaging characteristics of noncancerous lesions of the prostate , 1992, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.