Prostate cancer: computer-aided diagnosis with multiparametric 3-T MR imaging--effect on observer performance.

PURPOSE To determine the effect of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) on less-experienced and experienced observer performance in differentiation of benign from malignant prostate lesions at 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS The institutional review board waived the need for informed consent. Retrospectively, 34 patients were included who had prostate cancer and had undergone multiparametric MR imaging, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy. Six radiologists less experienced in prostate imaging and four radiologists experienced in prostate imaging were asked to characterize different regions suspicious for cancer as benign or malignant on multiparametric MR images first without and subsequently with CAD software. The effect of CAD was analyzed by using a multiple-reader, multicase, receiver operating characteristic analysis and a linear mixed-model analysis. RESULTS In 34 patients, 206 preannotated regions, including 67 malignant and 64 benign regions in the peripheral zone (PZ) and 19 malignant and 56 benign regions in the transition zone (TZ), were evaluated. Stand-alone CAD had an overall area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.90. For PZ and TZ lesions, the AUCs were 0.92 and 0.87, respectively. Without CAD, less-experienced observers had an overall AUC of 0.81, which significantly increased to 0.91 (P = .001) with CAD. For experienced observers, the AUC without CAD was 0.88, which increased to 0.91 (P = .17) with CAD. For PZ lesions, less-experienced observers increased their AUC from 0.86 to 0.95 (P < .001) with CAD. Experienced observers showed an increase from 0.91 to 0.93 (P = .13). For TZ lesions, less-experienced observers significantly increased their performance from 0.72 to 0.79 (P = .01) with CAD and experienced observers increased their performance from 0.81 to 0.82 (P = .42). CONCLUSION Addition of CAD significantly improved the performance of less-experienced observers in distinguishing benign from malignant lesions; when less-experienced observers used CAD, they reached similar performance as experienced observers. The stand-alone performance of CAD was similar to performance of experienced observers.

[1]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. , 2011, Radiology.

[2]  Bram van Ginneken,et al.  Computer-aided Detection of Lung Cancer on Chest Radiographs: Effect on Observer Performance , 2012 .

[3]  Peter Vock,et al.  Improved detection of pulmonary nodules on energy-subtracted chest radiographs with a commercial computer-aided diagnosis software: comparison with human observers , 2009, European Radiology.

[4]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Prostate cancer: body-array versus endorectal coil MR imaging at 3 T--comparison of image quality, localization, and staging performance. , 2007, Radiology.

[5]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Computer-aided detection versus independent double reading of masses on mammograms. , 2003, Radiology.

[6]  M Recht,et al.  Method for the quantitative assessment of contrast agent uptake in dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI , 1994, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

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

[8]  Henkjan J Huisman,et al.  Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2003, Radiology.

[9]  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.

[10]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging guided prostate biopsy in men with repeat negative biopsies and increased prostate specific antigen. , 2010, The Journal of urology.

[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]  B. Czerniak,et al.  Prostate cancer of transition zone origin lacks TMPRSS2–ERG gene fusion , 2009, Modern Pathology.

[13]  N. Obuchowski,et al.  Computer-aided detection of colorectal polyps: can it improve sensitivity of less-experienced readers? Preliminary findings. , 2007, Radiology.

[14]  Kazuro Sugimura,et al.  Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: Comparison of diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI in combination with T2‐weighted imaging , 2010, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[15]  Pieter C. Vos,et al.  Effect of calibration on computerized analysis of prostate lesions using quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[16]  H. Hricak,et al.  Assessment of biologic aggressiveness of prostate cancer: correlation of MR signal intensity with Gleason grade after radical prostatectomy. , 2008, Radiology.

[17]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Computer-aided detection of lung nodules: false positive reduction using a 3D gradient field method and 3D ellipsoid fitting. , 2005, Medical physics.

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

[19]  A. Graser,et al.  Computer-aided detection in CT colonography: initial clinical experience using a prototype system , 2007, European Radiology.

[20]  Nancy A Obuchowski,et al.  Determining sample size for ROC studies: what is reasonable for the expected difference in tests' ROC areas? , 2003, Academic radiology.

[21]  P. Tofts Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd‐DTPA MR imaging , 1997, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[22]  François Cornud,et al.  Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the detection and localization of prostate cancer: combination of T2‐weighted, dynamic contrast‐enhanced and diffusion‐weighted imaging , 2011, BJU international.

[23]  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.

[24]  T. Scheenen,et al.  Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging--early experience. , 2006, Radiology.

[25]  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.

[26]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Multi-parametric MR imaging of transition zone prostate cancer: Imaging features, detection and staging. , 2010, World journal of radiology.

[27]  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.

[28]  Josef Kittler,et al.  Floating search methods in feature selection , 1994, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

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

[30]  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.

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

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

[33]  G S Karczmar,et al.  A new method for imaging perfusion and contrast extraction fraction: Input functions derived from reference tissues , 1998, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

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

[35]  Yousef Mazaheri,et al.  Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. , 2011, Radiology.

[36]  T. Stamey,et al.  An analysis of 148 consecutive transition zone cancers: clinical and histological characteristics. , 2000, The Journal of urology.

[37]  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.

[38]  Thomas Hambrock,et al.  Computerized analysis of prostate lesions in the peripheral zone using dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. , 2008, Medical physics.

[39]  T. Stamey,et al.  Zonal Distribution of Prostatic Adenocarcinoma: Correlation with Histologic Pattern and Direction of Spread , 1988, The American journal of surgical pathology.