Zone-specific computer-aided diagnosis system aimed at characterizing ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancers on multiparametric magnetic resonance images: evaluation in a cohort of patients on active surveillance
- PMID: 37845554
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04643-1
Zone-specific computer-aided diagnosis system aimed at characterizing ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancers on multiparametric magnetic resonance images: evaluation in a cohort of patients on active surveillance
Abstract
Purpose: To assess a region-of-interest-based computer-assisted diagnosis system (CAD) in characterizing aggressive prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from patients under active surveillance (AS).
Methods: A prospective biopsy database was retrospectively searched for patients under AS who underwent MRI and subsequent biopsy at our institution. MRI lesions targeted at baseline biopsy were retrospectively delineated to calculate the CAD score that was compared to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score assigned at baseline biopsy.
Results: 186 patients were selected. At baseline biopsy, 51 and 15 patients had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 cancer respectively. The CAD score had significantly higher specificity for ISUP ≥ 2 cancers (60% [95% confidence interval (CI): 51-68]) than the PI-RADS score (≥ 3 dichotomization: 24% [CI: 17-33], p = 0.0003; ≥ 4 dichotomization: 32% [CI: 24-40], p = 0.0003). It had significantly lower sensitivity than the PI-RADS ≥ 3 dichotomization (85% [CI: 74-92] versus 98% [CI: 91-100], p = 0.015) but not than the PI-RADS ≥ 4 dichotomization (94% [CI:85-98], p = 0.104). Combining CAD findings and PSA density could have avoided 47/184 (26%) baseline biopsies, while missing 3/51 (6%) ISUP 2 and no ISUP ≥ 3 cancers. Patients with baseline negative CAD findings and PSAd < 0.15 ng/mL2 who stayed on AS after baseline biopsy had a 9% (4/44) risk of being diagnosed with ISUP ≥ 2 cancer during a median follow-up of 41 months, as opposed to 24% (18/74) for the others.
Conclusion: The CAD could help define AS patients with low risk of aggressive cancer at baseline assessment and during subsequent follow-up.
Keywords: Active surveillance; Artificial intelligence; Magnetic resonance imaging; Prostate biopsy; Prostate cancer.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
References
-
- Rozet F, Mongiat-Artus P, Hennequin C et al (2020) French ccAFU guidelines - update 2020–2022: prostate cancer. Prog Urol 30:S136–S251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1166-7087(20)30752-1 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Mottet N, van den Bergh RCN, Briers E et al (2021) EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer-2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent. Eur Urol 79:243–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2020.09.042 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E et al (2018) Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. part I: risk stratification, shared decision making, and care options. J Urol 199:683–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.095 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Klotz L, Pond G, Loblaw A et al (2020) Randomized study of systematic biopsy versus magnetic resonance imaging and targeted and systematic biopsy in men on active surveillance (ASIST): 2-year postbiopsy follow-up. Eur Urol 77:311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2019.10.007 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Schoots IG, Nieboer D, Giganti F, Moore CM, Bangma CH, Roobol MJ (2018) Is magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy a useful addition to systematic confirmatory biopsy in men on active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int 122:946–958. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14358 - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous
