Performance of Artificial Intelligence‐Aided Diagnosis System for Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer with MRI: A Diagnostic Comparison Study
Background The high level of expertise required for accurate interpretation of prostate MRI. Purpose To develop and test an artificial intelligence (AI) system for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPC) with MRI. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects One thousand two hundred thirty...
Saved in:
Published in | Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 57; no. 5; pp. 1352 - 1364 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Hoboken, USA
John Wiley & Sons, Inc
01.05.2023
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Summary: | Background
The high level of expertise required for accurate interpretation of prostate MRI.
Purpose
To develop and test an artificial intelligence (AI) system for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPC) with MRI.
Study Type
Retrospective.
Subjects
One thousand two hundred thirty patients from derivation cohort between Jan 2012 and Oct 2019, and 169 patients from a publicly available data (U‐Net: 423 for training/validation and 49 for test and TrumpeNet: 820 for training/validation and 579 for test).
Field Strength/Sequence
3.0T/scanners, T2‐weighted imaging (T2WI), diffusion‐weighted imaging, and apparent diffusion coefficient map.
Assessment
Close‐loop AI system was trained with an Unet for prostate segmentation and a TrumpetNet for CsPC detection. Performance of AI was tested in 410 internal and 169 external sets against 24 radiologists categorizing into junior, general and subspecialist group. Gleason score >6 was identified as CsPC at pathology.
Statistical Tests
Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC‐ROC); Delong test; Meta‐regression I2 analysis.
Results
In average, for internal test, AI had lower AUC‐ROC than subspecialists (0.85 vs. 0.92, P < 0.05), and was comparable to junior (0.84, P = 0.76) and general group (0.86, P = 0.35). For external test, both AI (0.86) and subspecialist (0.86) had higher AUC than junior (0.80, P < 0.05) and general reader (0.83, P < 0.05). In individual, it revealed moderate diagnostic heterogeneity in 24 readers (Mantel–Haenszel I2 = 56.8%, P < 0.01), and AI outperformed 54.2% (13/24) of readers in summary ROC analysis. In multivariate test, Gleason score, zonal location, PI‐RADS score and lesion size significantly impacted the accuracy of AI; while effect of data source, MR device and parameter settings on AI performance is insignificant (P > 0.05).
Data Conclusion
Our AI system can match and to some case exceed clinicians for the diagnosis of CsPC with prostate MRI.
Evidence Level
3
Technical Efficacy
Stage 2 |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Guang Yang and Yu‐Dong Zhang shares co‐response authorship. Ke‐Wen Jiang and Yang Song shares co‐first authorship. Contract grant sponsor: Key Research and Development Program of Jiangsu Province; Contract grant number: BE2017756 (to Z.Y); Contract grant sponsor: Key Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China; Contract grant number: 61731009 (to Y.G). ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 1053-1807 1522-2586 1522-2586 |
DOI: | 10.1002/jmri.28427 |