Radiological semantics discriminate clinically significant grade prostate cancer

BackgroundIdentification of imaging traits to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer is challenging due to the multi focal nature of the disease. The difficulty in obtaining a consensus by the Prostate Imaging and Data Systems (PI-RADS) scores coupled with disagreements in interpreting multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI) has resulted in increased variability in reporting findings and evaluating the utility of this imaging modality in detecting clinically significant prostate cancer. This study assess the ability of radiological traits (semantics) observed on multi-parametric Magnetic Resonance images (mpMRI) to discriminate clinically significant prostate cancer.MethodsWe obtained multi-parametric MRI studies from 103 prostate cancer patients with 167 targeted biopsies from a single institution. The study was approved by our Institutional Review Board (IRB) for retrospective analysis. The biopsy location had been identified and marked by a clinical radiologist for targeted biopsy based on initial study interpretation. Using the target locations, two study radiologists independently re-evaluated the scans and scored 16 semantic traits on a point scale (up to 5 levels) based on mpMRI images. The semantic traits describe size, shape, and border characteristics of the prostate lesion, as well as presence of disease around lymph nodes (lymphadenopathy). We built a linear classifier model on these semantic traits and related to pathological outcome to identify clinically significant tumors (Gleason Score ≥ 7). The discriminatory ability of the predictors was tested using cross validation method randomly repeated and ensemble values were reported. We then compared the performance of semantic predictors with the PI-RADS predictors.ResultsWe found several semantic features individually discriminated high grade Gleason score (ADC-intensity, Homogeneity, early-enhancement, T2-intensity and extraprostatic extention), these univariate predictors had an average area under the receiver operator characteristics (AUROC) ranging from 0.54 to 0.68. Multivariable semantic predictors with three features (ADC-intensity; T2-intensity, enhancement homogenicity) had an average AUROC of 0.7 [0.43, 0.94]. The PI-RADS based predictor had average AUROC of 0.6 [0.47, 0.75].ConclusionWe find semantics traits are related to pathological findings with relatively higher reproducibility between radiologists. Multivariable predictors formed on these traits shows higher discriminatory ability compared to PI-RADS scores.

[1]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data , 2015, Radiology.

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

[3]  A. Villers,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced, pelvic phased array magnetic resonance imaging of localized prostate cancer for predicting tumor volume: correlation with radical prostatectomy findings. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[4]  Pierre Mozer,et al.  Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsy: A Systematic Review. , 2015, European urology.

[5]  Adam T Froemming,et al.  Interobserver Reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: A Multicenter Study of Six Experienced Prostate Radiologists. , 2016, Radiology.

[6]  Aytekin Oto,et al.  Benign Conditions That Mimic Prostate Carcinoma: MR Imaging Features with Histopathologic Correlation. , 2016, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[7]  H. Hricak,et al.  Updated prostate imaging reporting and data system (PIRADS v2) recommendations for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI: critical evaluation using whole-mount pathology as standard of reference , 2016, European Radiology.

[8]  Clare Allen,et al.  Accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in detecting recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy , 2010, BJU international.

[9]  Katarzyna J Macura,et al.  Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 Guidelines for Multiparametric Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Recommendations for Use. , 2016, European urology.

[10]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[11]  Angela Mariotto,et al.  Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  S. Letautiene,et al.  The role of different PI-RADS versions in prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance tomography assessment , 2017, Acta medica Lituanica.

[13]  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.

[14]  A. Heidenreich Consensus criteria for the use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer: not ready for routine use. , 2011, European urology.

[15]  W. Youden,et al.  Index for rating diagnostic tests , 1950, Cancer.

[16]  Rebecca L. Siegel Mph,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2018 , 2018 .

[17]  J. Richenberg PI-RADS: past, present and future. , 2016, Clinical radiology.

[18]  A. Viera,et al.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. , 2005, Family medicine.

[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]  Marcus D. Ruopp,et al.  Youden Index and Optimal Cut‐Point Estimated from Observations Affected by a Lower Limit of Detection , 2008, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[21]  Matthew R Cooperberg,et al.  Changes in prostate cancer grade on serial biopsy in men undergoing active surveillance. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[23]  Zixiang Xiong,et al.  Normalization Benefits Microarray-Based Classification , 2006, EURASIP J. Bioinform. Syst. Biol..

[24]  Yu Xuan Kitzing,et al.  An update of pitfalls in prostate mpMRI: a practical approach through the lens of PI-RADS v. 2 guidelines , 2017, Insights into Imaging.

[25]  C. Tempany,et al.  MR imaging in adenocarcinoma of the prostate: interobserver variation and efficacy for determining stage C disease. , 1992, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[26]  Andre Dekker,et al.  Radiomics: the process and the challenges. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[27]  P. Albers,et al.  Inter-reader agreement of the ESUR score for prostate MRI using in-bore MRI-guided biopsies as the reference standard , 2013, European Radiology.

[28]  B. G. Blijenberg,et al.  Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  H. Thoeny,et al.  Prostate MRI based on PI-RADS version 2: how we review and report , 2016, Cancer Imaging.

[30]  Gary Liney,et al.  Correlation of diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance data with cellularity in prostate cancer , 2009, BJU international.

[31]  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.

[32]  P. Lambin,et al.  Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers , 2015, Scientific Reports.

[33]  Mladen A. Vouk,et al.  Analysis of Free Energy Signals Arising from Nucleotide Hybridization Between rRNA and mRNA Sequences during Translation in Eubacteria , 2006, EURASIP J. Bioinform. Syst. Biol..

[34]  Baris Turkbey,et al.  Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. , 2015, JAMA.

[35]  Su-Jin Shin,et al.  PI-RADS Version 2: Detection of Clinically Significant Cancer in Patients With Biopsy Gleason Score 6 Prostate Cancer. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[36]  Raj Persad,et al.  Scoring systems used for the interpretation and reporting of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection, localization, and characterization: could standardization lead to improved utilization of imaging within the diagnostic pathway? , 2013, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[37]  P. Carroll,et al.  Prostate depiction at endorectal MR spectroscopic imaging: investigation of a standardized evaluation system. , 2004, Radiology.

[38]  D. Holdstock Past, present--and future? , 2005, Medicine, conflict, and survival.

[39]  J. Hardenberg,et al.  Precision of MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: an ex vivo comparison of alternative biopsy techniques on prostate phantoms , 2017, World Journal of Urology.

[40]  J. Sim,et al.  The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. , 2005, Physical therapy.

[41]  Samuel H. Hawkins,et al.  Reproducibility and Prognosis of Quantitative Features Extracted from CT Images. , 2014, Translational oncology.

[42]  Tae Heon Kim,et al.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer in potential candidates for active surveillance , 2015, European Radiology.

[43]  Marco Salvatore,et al.  Comparison Between Gleason Score and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Obtained from Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of Prostate Cancer Patients , 2013, Cancer investigation.

[44]  B. Jereczek-Fossa,et al.  The Utility of Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) Using Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Values in Discriminating Between Prostate Cancer and Normal Tissue , 2014, Polish journal of radiology.

[45]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2018 , 2018, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.