Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate if computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) prior to prostate multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) can improve sensitivity and agreement between radiologists.

Methods

Nine radiologists (three each high, intermediate, low experience) from eight institutions participated. A total of 163 patients with 3-T mpMRI from 4/2012 to 6/2015 were included: 110 cancer patients with prostatectomy after mpMRI, 53 patients with no lesions on mpMRI and negative TRUS-guided biopsy. Readers were blinded to all outcomes and detected lesions per PI-RADSv2 on mpMRI. After 5 weeks, readers re-evaluated patients using CAD to detect lesions. Prostatectomy specimens registered to MRI were ground truth with index lesions defined on pathology. Sensitivity, specificity and agreement were calculated per patient, lesion level and zone—peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ).

Results

Index lesion sensitivity was 78.2% for mpMRI alone and 86.3% for CAD-assisted mpMRI (p = 0.013). Sensitivity was comparable for TZ lesions (78.7% vs 78.1%; p = 0.929); CAD improved PZ lesion sensitivity (84% vs 94%; p = 0.003). Improved sensitivity came from lesions scored PI-RADS < 3 as index lesion sensitivity was comparable at PI-RADS ≥ 3 (77.6% vs 78.1%; p = 0.859). Per patient specificity was 57.1% for CAD and 70.4% for mpMRI (p = 0.003). CAD improved agreement between all readers (56.9% vs 71.8%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

CAD-assisted mpMRI improved sensitivity and agreement, but decreased specificity, between radiologists of varying experience.

Key Points

• Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) assists clinicians in detecting prostate cancer on MRI.

• CAD assistance improves agreement between radiologists in detecting prostate cancer lesions.

• However, this CAD system induces more false positives, particularly for less-experienced clinicians and in the transition zone.

• CAD assists radiologists in detecting cancer missed on MRI, suggesting a path for improved diagnostic confidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AUC:

area under the curve

CAD:

computer-aided diagnosis

DCE:

dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging

DWI:

diffusion-weighted imaging

GS:

Gleason score

ISA:

index of specific agreement

mpMRI:

multi-parametric MRI

PI-RADS:

Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System

PSA:

prostate-specific antigen

PZ:

peripheral zone

T2W:

T2-weighted

TRUS:

transrectal ultrasound

TZ:

transition zone

References

  1. Society AC (2016) Cancer facts & figures 2016. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  2. Graif T, Loeb S, Roehl KA et al (2007) Under diagnosis and over diagnosis of prostate cancer. J Urol 178:88–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Draisma G, Etzioni R, Tsodikov A et al (2009) Lead time and overdiagnosis in prostate-specific antigen screening: importance of methods and context. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:374–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brown AM, Elbuluk O, Mertan F et al (2015) Recent advances in image-guided targeted prostate biopsy. Abdom Imaging 40:1788–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Meng X, Rosenkrantz AB, Mendhiratta N et al (2016) Relationship between prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), biopsy indication, and MRI-ultrasound fusion-targeted prostate biopsy outcomes. Eur Urol 69:512–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B et al (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Jama 313:390–397

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Schoots IG, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW, Hunink MG (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy may enhance the diagnostic accuracy of significant prostate cancer detection compared to standard transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68:438–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Borkowetz A, Platzek I, Toma M et al (2016) Direct comparison of multiparametric MRI and final histopathology in patients with proven prostate cancer in MRI/ultrasound-fusion biopsy. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosenkrantz AB, Deng FM, Kim S et al (2012) Prostate cancer: multiparametric MRI for index lesion localization–a multiple-reader study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:830–837

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borofsky S, George AK, Gaur S et al (2017) What are we missing? False-negative cancers at multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017152877:152877

  11. Garcia-Reyes K, Passoni NM, Palmeri ML et al (2015) Detection of prostate cancer with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI): effect of dedicated reader education on accuracy and confidence of index and anterior cancer diagnosis. Abdom Imaging 40:134–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gaziev G, Wadhwa K, Barrett T et al (2016) Defining the learning curve for multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the prostate using MRI-transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) fusion-guided transperineal prostate biopsies as a validation tool. BJU Int 117:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang S, Burtt K, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Summers RM (2014) Computer aided-diagnosis of prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI: a technical review of current research. Biomed Res Int 2014:789561

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Liu L, Tian Z, Zhang Z, Fei B (2016) Computer-aided detection of prostate cancer with MRI: technology and applications. Acad Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2016.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Litjens GJ, Elliott R, Shih NN et al (2015) Computer-extracted features can distinguish noncancerous confounding disease from prostatic adenocarcinoma at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142856:142856

  16. Litjens GJ, Barentsz JO, Karssemeijer N, Huisman HJ (2015) Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI. Eur Radiol 25:3187–3199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Peng Y, Jiang Y, Yang C et al (2013) Quantitative analysis of multiparametric prostate MR images: differentiation between prostate cancer and normal tissue and correlation with Gleason score–a computer-aided diagnosis development study. Radiology 267:787–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Tiwari P, Kurhanewicz J, Madabhushi A (2013) Multi-kernel graph embedding for detection, Gleason grading of prostate cancer via MRI/MRS. Med Image Anal 17:219–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Niaf E, Lartizien C, Bratan F et al (2014) Prostate focal peripheral zone lesions: characterization at multiparametric MR imaging–influence of a computer-aided diagnosis system. Radiology 271:761–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Niaf E, Rouviere O, Mege-Lechevallier F, Bratan F, Lartizien C (2012) Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer in the peripheral zone using multiparametric MRI. Phys Med Biol 57:3833–3851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 266:521–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Berbaum KS, Krupinski EA, Schartz KM et al (2015) Satisfaction of search in chest radiography 2015. Acad Radiol 22:1457–1465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lay N, Tsehay Y, Greer MD et al (2017) Detection of prostate cancer in multiparametric MRI using random forest with instance weighting. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 4:024506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Medixant (2015) RadiAnt DICOM Viewer, 2.2.9.10728. http://www.radiantviewer.com/

  25. Radiology ACo (2015) MR Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2.0.

  26. Shah V, Pohida T, Turkbey B et al (2009) A method for correlating in vivo prostate magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology using individualized magnetic resonance-based molds. Rev Sci Instrum 80:104301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kim YW, Mansfield LT (2014) Fool me twice: delayed diagnoses in radiology with emphasis on perpetuated errors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:465–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Muller BG, Shih JH, Sankineni S et al (2015) Prostate cancer: interobserver agreement and accuracy with the revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at multiparametric MR imaging. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142818:142818

  29. Rosenkrantz AB, Ginocchio LA, Cornfeld D et al (2016) Interobserver reproducibility of the PI-RADS Version 2 Lexicon: a multicenter study of six experienced prostate radiologists. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016152542:152542

  30. Rosenkrantz AB, Oto A, Turkbey B, Westphalen AC (2016) Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS), Version 2: a critical look. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:1179–1183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hansen NL, Koo BC, Gallagher FA et al (2016) Comparison of initial and tertiary centre second opinion reads of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate prior to repeat biopsy. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4635-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study has received funding by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research (Grant ZIA BC 010655).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Molecular Imaging Program, NCI, NIH, 10 Center Drive, Room B3B85, Bethesda, MD, 20892, USA

    Matthew D. Greer, Francesca V. Mertan, Peter L. Choyke & Baris Turkbey

  2. Imaging Biomarkers and Computer-Aided Diagnosis Laboratory, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Nathan Lay & Ronald M. Summers

  3. Biometric Research Program, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Joanna H. Shih

  4. Department of Radiology, University of Cambridge School of Medicine, Cambridge, UK

    Tristan Barrett

  5. Universidade Federal Fluminense and CDPI Clinics/DASA, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt

  6. George Washington University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA

    Samuel Borofsky

  7. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey

    Ismail Kabakus

  8. Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

    Yan Mee Law

  9. Radiology and Imaging Sciences Department, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Jamie Marko

  10. Department of Radiology, Nephrology Center, Mansoura University, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt

    Haytham Shebel

  11. Laboratory of Pathology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Maria J. Merino

  12. Center for Interventional Oncology, NCI and Radiology Imaging Sciences, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Bradford J. Wood

  13. Urologic Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA

    Peter A. Pinto

Authors
  1. Matthew D. Greer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathan Lay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joanna H. Shih
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tristan Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Leonardo Kayat Bittencourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samuel Borofsky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ismail Kabakus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yan Mee Law
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jamie Marko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Haytham Shebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Francesca V. Mertan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Maria J. Merino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Bradford J. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Peter A. Pinto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Ronald M. Summers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Peter L. Choyke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Baris Turkbey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baris Turkbey.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Baris Turkbey, MD.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Bradford Wood, Philips and InVivo; Ronald Summers, Ping An and iCAD.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors, Dr. Joanna Shih, has significant statistical expertise.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was obtained.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients in this study.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in Greer MD, Shih JH, Lay N, et al. Validation of the dominant sequence paradigm and role of dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging in PI-RADS Version 2. Radiology. 2017;285:859–869.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• multicentre study

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 18 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Greer, M.D., Lay, N., Shih, J.H. et al. Computer-aided diagnosis prior to conventional interpretation of prostate mpMRI: an international multi-reader study. Eur Radiol 28, 4407–4417 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5374-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5374-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation