Computer-extracted Features Can Distinguish Noncancerous Confounding Disease from Prostatic Adenocarcinoma at Multiparametric MR Imaging.

PURPOSE To determine the best features to discriminate prostate cancer from benign disease and its relationship to benign disease class and cancer grade. MATERIALS AND METHODS The institutional review board approved this study and waived the need for informed consent. A retrospective cohort of 70 patients (age range, 48-70 years; median, 62 years), all of whom were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and underwent preoperative 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, were included. The digitized prostatectomy slides were annotated for cancer and noncancerous disease and coregistered to MR imaging with an interactive deformable coregistration scheme. Computer-identified features for each of the noncancerous disease categories (eg, benign prostatic hyperplasia [BPH], prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia [PIN], inflammation, and atrophy) and prostate cancer were extracted. Feature selection was performed to identify the features with the highest discriminatory power. The performance of these five features was evaluated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS High-b-value diffusion-weighted images were more discriminative in distinguishing BPH from prostate cancer than apparent diffusion coefficient, which was most suitable for distinguishing PIN from prostate cancer. The focal appearance of lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced images may help discriminate atrophy and inflammation from cancer. Which imaging features are discriminative for different benign lesions is influenced by cancer grade. The apparent diffusion coefficient appeared to be the most discriminative feature in identifying high-grade cancer. Classification results showed increased performance by taking into account specific benign types (AUC = 0.70) compared with grouping all noncancerous findings together (AUC = 0.62). CONCLUSION The best features with which to discriminate prostate cancer from noncancerous benign disease depend on the type of benign disease and cancer grade. Use of the best features may result in better diagnostic performance.

[1]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Novel PCA‐VIP scheme for ranking MRI protocols and identifying computer‐extracted MRI measurements associated with central gland and peripheral zone prostate tumors , 2015, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[2]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Quantitative identification of magnetic resonance imaging features of prostate cancer response following laser ablation and radical prostatectomy , 2014, Journal of medical imaging.

[3]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Computerized image analysis for identifying triple-negative breast cancers and differentiating them from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: a feasibility study. , 2014, Radiology.

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

[5]  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.

[6]  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.

[7]  Andrew Hayen,et al.  2220 MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING DETECTS SIGNIFICANT PROSTATE CANCER AND COULD BE USED TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY BIOPSIES: INITIAL RESULTS FROM A PROSPECTIVE TRIAL , 2013 .

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

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

[10]  P. Mozer,et al.  Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients. , 2012, European urology.

[11]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer aggressiveness: in vivo assessment of MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging at 3 T. , 2012, Radiology.

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

[13]  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.

[14]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Use of patient-specific MRI-based prostate mold for validation of multiparametric MRI in localization of prostate cancer. , 2012, Urology.

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

[16]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: multiparametric MR imaging for detection, localization, and staging. , 2011, Radiology.

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

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

[19]  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.

[20]  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.

[21]  H. Shinmoto,et al.  Prostate cancer screening: The clinical value of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2007, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  Jayaram K. Udupa,et al.  Interplay between intensity standardization and inhomogeneity correction in MR image processing , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  S. Okuda,et al.  Prostate cancer screening : The clinical value of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic MR imaging , 2005 .

[24]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[25]  Qiang Li,et al.  Selective enhancement filters for nodules, vessels, and airway walls in two- and three-dimensional CT scans. , 2003, Medical physics.

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

[27]  Pavel Paclík,et al.  Adaptive floating search methods in feature selection , 1999, Pattern Recognit. Lett..