scholarly journals Autonomous Detection and Classification of PI-RADS Lesions in an MRI Screening Population Incorporating Multicenter-Labeled Deep Learning and Biparametric Imaging: Proof of Concept

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 951
Author(s):  
David J. Winkel ◽  
Christian Wetterauer ◽  
Marc Oliver Matthias ◽  
Bin Lou ◽  
Bibo Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Deep Learning ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Ground Truth ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Image Guided ◽  
Screening Population ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri

Background: Opportunistic prostate cancer (PCa) screening is a controversial topic. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has proven to detect prostate cancer with a high sensitivity and specificity, leading to the idea to perform an image-guided prostate cancer (PCa) screening; Methods: We evaluated a prospectively enrolled cohort of 49 healthy men participating in a dedicated image-guided PCa screening trial employing a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) protocol consisting of T2-weighted (T2w) and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) sequences. Datasets were analyzed both by human readers and by a fully automated artificial intelligence (AI) software using deep learning (DL). Agreement between the algorithm and the reports—serving as the ground truth—was compared on a per-case and per-lesion level using metrics of diagnostic accuracy and k statistics; Results: The DL method yielded an 87% sensitivity (33/38) and 50% specificity (5/10) with a k of 0.42. 12/28 (43%) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) 3, 16/22 (73%) PI-RADS 4, and 5/5 (100%) PI-RADS 5 lesions were detected compared to the ground truth. Targeted biopsy revealed PCa in six participants, all correctly diagnosed by both the human readers and AI. Conclusions: The results of our study show that in our AI-assisted, image-guided prostate cancer screening the software solution was able to identify highly suspicious lesions and has the potential to effectively guide the targeted-biopsy workflow.

scholarly journals Performance Evaluation of Deep Learning-Based Prostate Cancer Screening Methods in Histopathological Images: Measuring the Impact of the Model’s Complexity on Its Processing Speed

Sensors ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 1122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lourdes Duran-Lopez ◽  
Juan P. Dominguez-Morales ◽  
Antonio Rios-Navarro ◽  
Daniel Gutierrez-Galan ◽  
Angel Jimenez-Fernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Deep Learning ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Limited Resources ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Current State ◽  
Prediction Time ◽  
Histopathological Images ◽  
Comprehensive Comparison ◽  
The Impact

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most frequently diagnosed cancer among men worldwide, with almost 1.3 million new cases and 360,000 deaths in 2018. As it has been estimated, its mortality will double by 2040, mostly in countries with limited resources. These numbers suggest that recent trends in deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis could play an important role, serving as screening methods for PCa detection. These algorithms have already been used with histopathological images in many works, in which authors tend to focus on achieving high accuracy results for classifying between malignant and normal cases. These results are commonly obtained by training very deep and complex convolutional neural networks, which require high computing power and resources not only in this process, but also in the inference step. As the number of cases rises in regions with limited resources, reducing prediction time becomes more important. In this work, we measured the performance of current state-of-the-art models for PCa detection with a novel benchmark and compared the results with PROMETEO, a custom architecture that we proposed. The results of the comprehensive comparison show that using dedicated models for specific applications could be of great importance in the future.

1035: Prevalence of Erectile Dysfunction in a Prostate Cancer Screening Population

2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 342-342
Author(s):  
Jochen Walz ◽  
Georg Salomon ◽  
Paul Perrotte ◽  
Andrea Gallina ◽  
Georg C. Hutterer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Erectile Dysfunction ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Population

scholarly journals Bi- or multiparametric MRI in a sequential screening program for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI? Results from the Göteborg prostate cancer screening 2 trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonas Wallström ◽  
Kjell Geterud ◽  
Kimia Kohestani ◽  
Stephan E. Maier ◽  
Marianne Månsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Detection ◽  
Screening Program ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Multiparametric Mri ◽  
False Positives ◽  
Quality Data ◽  
Gadolinium Contrast ◽  
Sequential Screening

Abstract Objectives The PIRADS Steering Committee has called for “higher quality data before making evidence-based recommendations on MRI without contrast enhancement as an initial diagnostic work up,” however, recognizing biparametric (bp) MRI as a reasonable option in a low-risk setting such as screening. With bpMRI, more men can undergo MRI at a lower cost and they can be spared the invasiveness of intravenous access. The aim of this study was to assess cancer detection in bpMRI vs mpMRI in sequential screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods Within the ongoing Göteborg PCa screening 2 trial, we assessed cancer detection in 551 consecutive participants undergoing prostate MRI. In the same session, readers first assessed bpMRI and then mpMRI. Four targeted biopsies were performed for lesions scored PIRADS 3–5 with bpMRI and/or mpMRI. Results Cancer was detected in 84/551 cases (15.2%; 95% CI: 12.4–18.4) with mpMRI and in 83/551 cases (15.1%; 95% CI: 12.3–18.2%) with bpMRI. The relative risk (RR) for cancer detection with bpMRI compared to mpMRI was 0.99 (95% one-sided CI: > 94.8); bpMRI was non-inferior to mpMRI (10% non-inferiority margin). bpMRI resulted in fewer false positives, 45/128 (35.2%), compared to mpMRI, 52/136 (38.2%), RR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.84–0.98. Of 8 lesions scored positive only with mpMRI, 7 were false positives. The PPV for MRI and targeted biopsy was 83/128 (64.8%) for bpMRI and 84/136 (61.8%) for mpMRI, RR = 1.05, 95% CI: 1.01–1.10. Conclusions In a PSA-screened population, bpMRI was non-inferior to mpMRI for cancer detection and resulted in fewer false positives. Key Points • In screening for prostate cancer with PSA followed by MRI, biparametric MRI allows radiologists to detect an almost similar number of prostate cancers and score fewer false positive lesions compared to multiparametric MRI. • In a screening program, high sensitivity should be weighed against cost and risks for healthy men; a large number of men can be saved the exposure of gadolinium contrast medium by adopting biparametric MRI and at the same time allowing for a higher turnover in the MRI room.

PREDICTORS OF THE ANDROGEN DEFICIENCY IN MEN (ADAM) SYNDROME IN A PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING POPULATION

2009 ◽  
Vol 181 (4S) ◽  
pp. 368-368
Author(s):  
Nelson N Stone ◽  
Kathryn F Sullivan ◽  
Wendy Poage ◽  
E David Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Androgen Deficiency ◽  
Screening Population

scholarly journals MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy in diagnostics of prostate cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 86-93
Author(s):  
R.A. Romanov ◽  
◽  
A.V. Koryakin ◽  
A.V. Sivkov ◽  
B.Ya. Alekseev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Fusion Biopsy ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Targeted Biopsies

Introduction. Significant improvement in the quality of visualization of the prostate using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as well as the development of technologies for virtual combination of MRI and ultrasound images opens new horizons in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The introduction of the PI-RADS system has allowed the standardization of MRI findings, and the development of fusion biopsy systems seeks to make diagnostics more accurate and less operator-dependent. Materials and methods. In this literature review, we evaluate the effectiveness of various biopsy approaches and discuss the prospects for targeted biopsies. The search for publications was carried out in the databases PubMed, e-library, Web of Scince et al. For citation, 55 literature sources were selected that met the search criteria for the keywords, «prostate cancer», «biopsy», «MRI», «TRUS», «fusion». Results. Diagnosis of prostate cancer using MRI. Modern technologies for radiological diagnosis of prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are based on the standardized PI-RADS protocol, using different modes (T2, diffusion-weighted images and contrast enhancement), which provides the best visualization of tumor-suspicious nodes in the prostate gland, allowing determination of lesion localization and size for subsequent targeted biopsy. Options for performing a prostate biopsy to diagnose prostate cancer. A description of the methods and effectiveness of transrectal and transperineal biopsy under ultrasound guidance is carried out - due to the fact that ultrasound diagnostics of prostate cancer has a rather low sensitivity due to small differences in the ultrasound structure of normal and tumor tissue of the prostate, an extended template biopsy technique was proposed, which involves puncture of the prostate through a special lattice. It also describes the technology of fusion biopsy and also provides literature data comparing the diagnostic accuracy of standard TRUS and fusion prostate biopsy, as well as the importance of transrectal / transperineal access. Questions for further study. Given the desire to reduce the number of biopsies while maintaining or even increasing the accuracy of diagnosing prostate cancer, data from studies investigating the feasibility of combining polyfocal (non-targeted) and targeted (targeted) biopsies are presented. Conclusion. The existing methods of non-targeted biopsy (polyfocal, saturation, template) and targeted (fusion biopsy) have their advantages and disadvantages, which currently do not allow making certain recommendations for their use, but a significant number of authors prefer MRI-as sisted, fusion -biopsy.

scholarly journals Epigenetic Markers for Molecular Detection of Prostate Cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 31-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera L. Costa ◽  
Rui Henrique ◽  
Carmen Jerónimo
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Prostate Cancer Risk ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Promoter Hypermethylation ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Tissue Samples ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Small Set

Prostate cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy, which is clinically silent but curable while organ-confined. Because available screening methods show poor sensitivity and specificity, the development of new molecular markers is warranted. Epigenetic alterations, mainly promoter hypermethylation of cancer-related genes, are common events in prostate cancer and might be used as cancer biomarkers. Moreover, the development of quantitative, high-throughput techniques to assess promoter methylation enabled the simultaneous screening of multiple clinical samples. From the numerous cancer-related genes hypermethylated in prostate cancer only a few proved to be strong candidates to become routine biomarkers. This small set of genes includesGSTP1,APC,RARβ2,Cyclin D2,MDR1, andPTGS2. Single and/or multigene analyses demonstrated the feasibility of detecting early prostate cancer, with high sensitivity and specificity, in body fluids (serum, plasma, urine, and ejaculates) and tissue samples. In addition, quantitative hypermethylation of several genes has been associated with clinicopathologic features of tumor aggressiveness, and also reported as independent prognostic factor for relapse. The identification of age-related methylation at specific loci and the differential frequency of methylation among ethnical groups, also provided interesting data linking methylation and prostate cancer risk. Although large trials are needed to validate these findings, the clinical use of these markers might be envisaged for the near future.

scholarly journals Relationship Between Prostate-specific Antigen, Age, and Body Mass Index in a Prostate Cancer Screening Population

2012 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 490-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke E. Pater ◽  
Kimberly W. Hart ◽  
Brian J. Blonigen ◽  
Christopher J. Lindsell ◽  
William L. Barrett
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Specific Antigen ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Screening Population

186 PREVALENCE OF PROSTATITIS LIKE SYMPTOMS IN A PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING POPULATION

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
J. Walz ◽  
P. Perrotte ◽  
A. Gallina ◽  
F. Bénard ◽  
L. Valiquette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Population

scholarly journals Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/cognitive fusion biopsy: Comparing standard and targeted prostate biopsy with final prostatectomy histology

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
James Ryan ◽  
Mark P. Broe ◽  
Diarmaid Moran ◽  
David Mulvin ◽  
Eric Heffernan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Prostate Biopsy ◽  
Targeted Biopsy ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Mri Findings ◽  
Final Histology ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging Mri ◽  
Targeted Biopsies

Introduction: The use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with targeted biopsies of the prostate improves the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer. Recent studies have shown that targeted prostate biopsies also more accurately predict final histopathology after radical prostatectomy (RP). There are three broad techniques for performing MRI-targeted prostate biopsy: cognitive MRI/ultrasound (US) fusion, software MRI/US fusion, and in-bore MRI-guided. Current practices recommend that a standard systematic 12-core prostate biopsy be performed, as well as targeted biopsies in patients with positive MRI findings. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of histological grading of cognitive MRI/US fusion prostate biopsy by comparing the histology from the targeted biopsy specimens (TB), standard systematic specimens (SB), and the combination of both (CB) specimens with the final histological grade from subsequent prostatectomy. Methods: A retrospective, single-center review of 115 patients who underwent standard systematic and cognitive MRI/US-targeted biopsy of the prostate before undergoing a RP between 2016 and 2019 was performed. MRI findings, biopsy, final histology International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grades, and patient demographics were collected. Cochran’s Q test and McNemar test were used to compare the differences in upgrading, downgrading, and concordance between each biopsy group. Results: The concordance between SB, TB, and CB biopsy were 28.7%, 49.6%, and 50.4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in concordance between TB and CB. Patients were more likely to be downgraded on the final histology when comparing CB with TB alone (26.1% vs. 16.5%, p<0.05). In cases where an ISUP grade 1 cancer was diagnosed on TB (n=24), there was a 62.5% chance that the final histology would be upgraded. In the same sample, when combined with a SB, the risk of upgrading on final histology reduced to 37.5%. Conclusions: Although grading concordance between TB and CB were similar, the concomitant use of a SB significantly reduced the rate of upgrading in the final RP histopathology. CB may result in better decision-making regarding treatment options and also have implications for intraoperative planning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document