In European radiology ; h5-index 62.0
OBJECTIVES : To develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model for prostate segmentation and prostate cancer (PCa) detection, and explore the added value of AI-based computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) compared to conventional PI-RADS assessment.
METHODS : A retrospective study was performed on multi-centers and included patients who underwent prostate biopsies and multiparametric MRI. A convolutional-neural-network-based AI model was trained and validated; the reliability of different CAD methods (concurrent read and AI-first read) were tested in an internal/external cohort. The diagnostic performance, consistency and efficiency of radiologists and AI-based CAD were compared.
RESULTS : The training/validation/internal test sets included 650 (400/100/150) cases from one center; the external test included 100 cases (25/25/50) from three centers. For diagnosis accuracy, AI-based CAD methods showed no significant differences and were equivalent to the radiologists in the internal test (127/150 vs. 130/150 vs. 125/150 for reader 1; 127/150 vs.132/150 vs. 131/150 for reader 2; all p > 0.05), whereas in the external test, concurrent-read methods were superior/equal to AI-first read (87/100 vs. 71/100, p < 0.001, for reader 2; 79/100 vs. 69/100, p = 0.076, for reader 1) and better than/equal to radiologists (79/100 vs. 72/100, p = 0.039, for reader 1; 87/100 vs. 86/100, p = 1.000, for reader 2). Moreover, AI-first read/concurrent read improved consistency in both internal test (κ = 1.000, 0.830) and external test (κ = 0.958, 0.713) compared to radiologists (κ = 0.747, 0.600); AI-first read method (8.54 s/7.66 s) was faster than readers (92.72 s/89.54 s) and concurrent-read method (29.15 s/28.92 s), respectively.
CONCLUSION : AI-based CAD could improve the consistency and efficiency for accurate diagnosis; the concurrent-read method could enhance the diagnostic capabilities of an inexperienced radiologist in unfamiliar situations.
KEY POINTS : • For prostate cancer segmentation, the performance of multi-small Vnet displays optimal compared to small Vnet and Vnet (DSCmsvnet vs. DSCsvnet, p = 0.021; DSCmsvnet vs. DSCvnet, p < 0.001). • For prostate gland segmentation, the mean/median DSCs for fine and coarse segmentation were 0.91/0.91 and 0.88/0.89, respectively. Fine segmentation displays superior performance compared to coarse (DSCcoarse vs. DSCfine, p < 0.001). • For PCa diagnosis, AI-based CAD methods improve consistency in internal (κ = 1.000; 0.830) and external (κ = 0.958; 0.713) tests compared to radiologists (κ = 0.747; 0.600); the AI-first read (8.54 s/7.66 s) was faster than the readers (92.72 s/89.54 s) and the concurrent-read method (29.15 s/28.92 s).
Liu Guiqin, Pan Shihang, Zhao Rui, Zhou Huang, Chen Jie, Zhou Xiang, Xu Jianrong, Zhou Yan, Xue Wei, Wu Guangyu
2023-Feb-01
Artificial intelligence, Magnetic resonance imaging, Prostatic neoplasms
