Prostate focal peripheral zone lesions: characterization at multiparametric MR imaging--influence of a computer-aided diagnosis system.

PURPOSE To assess the impact of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system in the characterization of focal prostate lesions at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS Formal institutional review board approval was not required. Thirty consecutive 1.5-T multiparametric MR imaging studies (with T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging) obtained before radical prostatectomy in patients between September 2008 and February 2010 were reviewed. Twelve readers assessed the likelihood of malignancy of 88 predefined peripheral zone lesions by using a five-level (level, 0-4) subjective score (SS) in reading session 1. This was repeated 5 weeks later in reading session 2. The CAD results were then disclosed, and in reading session 3, the readers could amend the scores assigned during reading session 2. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed by using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) regression model and was quantified with the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS Mean AUCs were significantly lower for less experienced (<1 year) readers (P < .02 for all sessions). Seven readers improved their performance between reading sessions 1 and 2, and 12 readers improved their performance between sessions 2 and 3. The mean AUCs for reading session 1 (83.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.9%, 88.0%) and reading session 2 (84.1%; 95% CI: 78.1%, 88.7%) were not significantly different (P = .76). Although the mean AUC for reading session 3 (87.2%; 95% CI: 81.0%, 92.0%) was higher than that for session 2, the difference was not significant (P = .08). For an SS positivity threshold of 3, the specificity of reading session 2 (79.0%; 95% CI: 71.1%, 86.4%) was not significantly different from that of session 1 (78.7%; 95% CI: 70.5%, 86.8%) but was significantly lower than that of session 3 (86.2%; 95% CI: 77.1%, 93.1%; P < .03). The sensitivity of reading session 2 (68.4%; 95% CI: 57.5%, 77.7%) was significantly higher than that of session 1 (64.0%; 95% CI: 52.9%, 73.9%; P = .003) but was not significantly different from that of session 3 (71.4%; 95% CI: 58.3%, 82.7%). CONCLUSION A CAD system may improve the characterization of prostate lesions at multiparametric MR imaging by increasing reading specificity.

[1]  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.

[2]  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.

[3]  S. Crouzet,et al.  Prostate focused ultrasound focal therapy—imaging for the future , 2012, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[4]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer: computer-aided diagnosis with multiparametric 3-T MR imaging--effect on observer performance. , 2013, Radiology.

[5]  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.

[6]  William Wells,et al.  Detection of prostate cancer by integration of line-scan diffusion, T2-mapping and T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging; a multichannel statistical classifier. , 2003, Medical physics.

[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]  Clare Allen,et al.  Is it time to consider a role for MRI before prostate biopsy? , 2009, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[9]  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.

[10]  M. Colombel,et al.  Is it possible to model the risk of malignancy of focal abnormalities found at prostate multiparametric MRI? , 2012, European Radiology.

[11]  M. Sumura,et al.  Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate transition-zone cancer , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[12]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Comparing MR image intensity standardization against tissue characterizability of magnetization transfer ratio imaging , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[13]  Margaret Sullivan Pepe,et al.  Distribution-free ROC analysis using binary regression techniques. , 2002, Biostatistics.

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

[15]  Olivier Rouvière,et al.  Evaluation of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in localizing prostate cancer before repeat biopsy , 2009, European Radiology.

[16]  Nathan Lawrentschuk,et al.  Focal therapy in prostate cancer: modalities, findings and future considerations , 2010, Nature Reviews Urology.

[17]  Xavier Leroy,et al.  Prostate cancer diagnosis: multiparametric MR-targeted biopsy with cognitive and transrectal US-MR fusion guidance versus systematic biopsy--prospective multicenter study. , 2013, Radiology.

[18]  Evis Sala,et al.  Transition zone prostate cancers: features, detection, localization, and staging at endorectal MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

[19]  Kyung Ah Kim,et al.  Prostate cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient map with T2-weighted images for detection--a multireader study. , 2009, Radiology.

[20]  Shyam Natarajan,et al.  Value of targeted prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion in men with prior negative biopsy and elevated prostate-specific antigen. , 2014, European urology.

[21]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  A hierarchical spectral clustering and nonlinear dimensionality reduction scheme for detection of prostate cancer from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). , 2009, Medical physics.

[22]  Olivier Rouvière,et al.  Prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with simple visual diagnostic criteria: is it reasonable? , 2007, European Radiology.

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

[24]  P. Choyke,et al.  Prostate cancer: value of multiparametric MR imaging at 3 T for detection--histopathologic correlation. , 2010, Radiology.

[25]  Yongyi Yang,et al.  Supervised and unsupervised methods for prostate cancer segmentation with multispectral MRI. , 2010, Medical physics.

[26]  Xin Liu,et al.  Prostate Cancer Segmentation With Simultaneous Estimation of Markov Random Field Parameters and Class , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[27]  A. Evans,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with multi‐parametric MRI: Logistic regression analysis of quantitative T2, diffusion‐weighted imaging, and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[28]  A. Villers,et al.  Prostate cancer characterization on MR images using fractal features. , 2010, Medical physics.

[29]  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.

[30]  M. Pepe.  The Statistical Evaluation of Medical Tests for Classification and Prediction , 2003 .

[31]  M. Colombel,et al.  Differentiation of transitional zone prostate cancer from benign hyperplasia nodules: evaluation of discriminant criteria at multiparametric MRI. , 2013, Clinical radiology.

[32]  Xavier Leroy,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of intraprostatic prostate cancer: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2009, Urology.

[33]  M. Giger,et al.  Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score--a computer-aided diagnosis development study. , 2013, Radiology.

[34]  Hiroshi Honda,et al.  Usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient map in diagnosing prostate carcinoma: Correlation with stepwise histopathology , 2008, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[35]  H. Huisman,et al.  Prostate cancer localization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging. , 2006, Radiology.

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

[37]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound fusion biopsy detect prostate cancer in patients with prior negative transrectal ultrasound biopsies. , 2012, The Journal of urology.

[38]  Nacim Betrouni,et al.  Computer-assisted diagnosis of prostate cancer using DCE-MRI data: design, implementation and preliminary results , 2008, International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery.