Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 264–271 | Cite as

Improvement of prostate cancer detection combining a computer-aided diagnostic system with TRUS-MRI targeted biopsy

  • Riccardo Campa
  • Maurizio Del Monte
  • Giovanni Barchetti
  • Martina Pecoraro
  • Vincenzo Salvo
  • Isabella Ceravolo
  • Elena Lucia Indino
  • Antonio Ciardi
  • Carlo Catalano
  • Valeria PanebiancoEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To validate a novel consensus method, called target-in-target, combining human analysis of mpMRI with automated CAD system analysis, with the aim to increasing the prostate cancer detection rate of targeted biopsies.

Methods

A cohort of 420 patients was enrolled and 253 patients were rolled out, due to exclusion criteria. 167 patients, underwent diagnostic 3T MpMRI. Two expert radiologists evaluated the exams adopting PI-RADSv2 and CAD system. When a CAD target overlapped with a radiologic one, we performed the biopsy in the overlapping area which we defined as target-in-target. Targeted TRUS-MRI fusion biopsy was performed in 63 patients with a total of 212 targets. The MRI data of all targets were quantitatively analyzed, and diagnostic findings were compared to pathologist’s biopsy reports.

Results

CAD system diagnostic performance exhibited sensitivity and specificity scores of 55.2% and 74.1% [AUC = 0.63 (0.54 ÷ 0.71)] , respectively. Human readers achieved an AUC value, in ROC analysis, of 0.71 (0.63 ÷ 0.79). The target-in-target method provided a detection rate per targeted biopsy core of 81.8 % vs. a detection rate per targeted biopsy core of 68.6 % for pure PI-RADS based on target definitions. The higher per-core detection rate of the target-in-target approach was achieved irrespective of the presence of technical flaws and artifacts.

Conclusions

A novel consensus method combining human reader evaluation with automated CAD system analysis of mpMRI to define prostate biopsy targets was shown to improve the detection rate per biopsy core of TRUS-MRI fusion biopsies. Results suggest that the combination of CAD system analysis and human reader evaluation is a winning strategy to improve targeted biopsy efficiency.

Keywords

Prostate cancer Multiparametric MRI TRUS/MRI fusion biopsy Interventional radiology Prostate biopsy Computer-aided diagnosis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the institutional board and the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    De Angelis R, et al. (2014) Cancer survival in Europe 1999–2007 by country and age: results of EUROCARE-5—A population-based study. Lancet Oncol 15(1):23–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mottet N, et al. (2017) EAU-ESTRO-SIOG guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and local treatment with curative intent. Eur Urol. 71(4):618–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cancer Facts & Figures (2017). American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Itatani R, et al. (2014) Negative predictive value of multiparametric MRI for prostate cancer detection: outcome of 5-year follow-up in men with negative findings on initial MRI studies. Eur J Radiol 83(10):1740–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schimmöller L, et al. (2014) Predictive power of the ESUR scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis verified with targeted MR-guided in-bore biopsy. Eur J Radiol 83(12):2103–2108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moore CM, et al. (2013) Image-guided prostate biopsy using magnetic resonance imaging-derived targets: a systematic review. Eur Urol 63(1):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson J, Lawrentschuk N, Frydenberg M, et al. (2013) The role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer: the role of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. BJU Int 112:6–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Panebianco V, et al. (2018) Negative multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer: what’s next? Eur Urol 74(1):48–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ahmed HU, et al. (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389(10071):815–822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Siddiqui MM, et al. (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. JAMA 313(4):390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Radtke JP, et al. (2016) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and MRI–transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsy for index tumor detection: correlation with radical prostatectomy specimen. Eur Urol 70(5):846–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Filson CP, et al. (2016) Prostate cancer detection with magnetic resonance-ultrasound fusion biopsy: the role of systematic and targeted biopsies: CaP detection with MR-US fusion biopsy. Cancer 122(6):884–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salami SS, et al. (2015) In patients with a previous negative prostate biopsy and a suspicious lesion on magnetic resonance imaging, is a 12-core biopsy still necessary in addition to a targeted biopsy?: performance of mpMRI in predicting prostate cancer on repeat biopsy. BJU Int 115(4):562–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Barentsz JO, et al. (2016) Synopsis of the PI-RADS v2 guidelines for multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging and recommendations for use. Eur Urol 69(1):41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kasivisvanathan V, et al. (2018) MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1801993 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hambrock T, Vos PC, Hulsbergen–van de Kaa CA, Barentsz JO, Huisman HJ (2013) Prostate cancer: computer-aided diagnosis with multiparametric 3-T MR imaging—Effect on observer performance. Radiology 266(2):521–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Doi K (2007) Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: historical review, current status and future potential. Comput Med Imaging Graph 31(4–5):198–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vos PC, Hambrock T, Barenstz JO, Huisman HJ (2010) Computer-assisted analysis of peripheral zone prostate lesions using T2-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Phys Med Biol 55(6):1719–1734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Epstein JI (1994) Pathologic and clinical findings to predict tumor extent of nonpalpable (Stage T1 c) prostate cancer. JAMA 271(5):368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simonetti G (2010) Imaging RM della prostata. Milan: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roethke MC, et al. (2016) Evaluation of an automated analysis tool for prostate cancer prediction using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. PLoS ONE 11(7):e0159803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Panebianco V, et al. (2015) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging vs. standard care in men being evaluated for prostate cancer: a randomized study. Urol Oncol Semin Orig Investig 33(17):1–7Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wysock JS, et al. (2014) A prospective, blinded comparison of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-ultrasound fusion and visual estimation in the performance of MR-targeted prostate biopsy: the PROFUS trial. Eur Urol 66(2):343–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Riccardo Campa
    • 1
  • Maurizio Del Monte
    • 1
  • Giovanni Barchetti
    • 1
  • Martina Pecoraro
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Salvo
    • 1
  • Isabella Ceravolo
    • 1
  • Elena Lucia Indino
    • 1
  • Antonio Ciardi
    • 1
  • Carlo Catalano
    • 1
  • Valeria Panebianco
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and PathologySapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations