Evaluating texture-based prostate cancer classification on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography

In-vivo imaging of the prostate has shown to be useful for prostate cancer (PCa) localization especially during biopsy procedures. Multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) is gaining rapid popularity amongst clinicians but is complex and difficult to interpret by even expert radiologists. Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA PET) is emerging as a new tool for PCa detection and has shown promising results towards lesion identification. Both imaging procedures suffer from intra- and inter- observer variability in PCa detection. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems have been developed as a solution to mitigate observer variability and have shown to boost diagnostic accuracy. There are currently no studies published that assessed the benefit of incorporating PSMA PET imaging and mp-MRI into a CAD system for PCa detection. We compared the accuracy of CAD models trained and tested on features from mp-MRI+PSMA PET, mp-MRI and PSMA PET by training on 1-10 features chosen from three feature selection methods for 10 different classifiers for each of the three experiments. We found that models trained on mp-MRI provided lower overall error and greater specificity, and models trained on mp-MRI+PSMA PET and PSMA PET provided greater sensitivity to lesions in the central gland, which is a known area of difficulty for mp-MRI. Further validation using a larger dataset is required to prove the added benefit of PSMA PET imaging as a second modality to PCa CAD systems. Once fully validated, these results will demonstrate the added benefit of incorporating PSMA PET imaging into CAD models towards PCa detection.

[1]  Markus Schwaiger,et al.  Current use of PSMA–PET in prostate cancer management , 2016, Nature Reviews Urology.

[2]  Afaf R. Genady,et al.  Automated synthesis of [18F]DCFPyL via direct radiofluorination and validation in preclinical prostate cancer models , 2016, EJNMMI Research.

[3]  Jin Tae Kwak,et al.  Automated prostate cancer detection using T2-weighted and high-b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. , 2015, Medical physics.

[4]  Juan Hu,et al.  Prostate cancer identification: quantitative analysis of T2-weighted MR images based on a back propagation artificial neural network model , 2015, Science China Life Sciences.

[5]  Zixing Huang,et al.  Comparison of PET/MRI with multiparametric MRI in diagnosis of primary prostate cancer: A meta-analysis. , 2019, European journal of radiology.

[6]  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.

[7]  Jan van der Meulen,et al.  Multiparametric MR imaging for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer: a validation cohort study with transperineal template prostate mapping as the reference standard. , 2013, Radiology.

[8]  A. Brickman,et al.  Quality of life: radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. , 1995, The Journal of urology.

[9]  A. Drzezga,et al.  Comparison of [18F]DCFPyL and [68Ga]Ga-PSMA-HBED-CC for PSMA-PET Imaging in Patients with Relapsed Prostate Cancer , 2015, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

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

[11]  Rhian Gabe,et al.  Multiparametric MRI to improve detection of prostate cancer compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy alone: the PROMIS study. , 2018, Health technology assessment.

[12]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prospective assessment of prostate cancer aggressiveness using 3-T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies versus a systematic 10-core transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsy cohort. , 2012, European urology.

[13]  Aaron D. Ward,et al.  Texture-based prostate cancer classification on MRI: how does inter-class size mismatch affect measured system performance? , 2019, Medical Imaging.

[14]  Fuhui Long,et al.  Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[15]  A. Fenster,et al.  Toward Prostate Cancer Contouring Guidelines on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Dominant Lesion Gross and Clinical Target Volume Coverage Via Accurate Histology Fusion. , 2016, International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics.

[16]  Jurgen J Fütterer,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: a meta-analysis. , 2014, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

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

[18]  J. Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: general pathologist. , 2001, Human pathology.

[19]  W. Oyen,et al.  Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen Heterogeneity and DNA Repair Defects in Prostate Cancer , 2019, European urology.

[20]  W. Catalona,et al.  Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

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