Search

Purpose: To present fully automated DL-based prostate cancer detection system for prostate MRI. Methods: MRI scans from two institutions, were used for algorithm training, validation, testing. MRI-visible lesions were contoured by an experienced radiologist. All lesions were biopsied using MRI-TRUS-guidance. Lesions masks, histopathological results were used as ground truth labels to train UNet, AH-Net architectures for prostate cancer lesion detection, segmentation. Algorithm was trained to detect any prostate cancer ≥ ISUP1. Detection sensitivity, positive predictive values, mean number of false positive lesions per patient were used as performance metrics. Results: 525 patients were included for training, validation, testing of the algorithm. Dataset was split into training (n = 368, 70%), validation (n = 79, 15%), test (n = 78, 15%) cohorts. Dice coefficients in training, validation sets were 0.403, 0.307, respectively, for AHNet model compared to 0.372, 0.287, respectively, for UNet model. In validation set, detection sensitivity was 70.9%, PPV was 35.5%, mean number of false positive lesions/patient was 1.41 (range 0–6) for UNet model compared to 74.4% detection sensitivity, 47.8% PPV, mean number of false positive lesions/patient was 0.87 (range 0–5) for AHNet model. In test set, detection sensitivity for UNet was 72.8% compared to 63.0% for AHNet, mean number of false positive lesions/patient was 1.90 (range 0–7), 1.40 (range 0–6) in UNet, AHNet models, respectively. Conclusion: We developed a DL-based AI approach which predicts prostate cancer lesions at biparametric MRI with reasonable performance metrics. While false positive lesion calls remain as a challenge of AI-assisted detection algorithms, this system can be utilized as an adjunct tool by radiologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim Methods Results Conclusions Reliable bowel preparation assessment is important in colonoscopy. However, current scoring systems are limited by laborious and time‐consuming tasks and interobserver variability. We aimed to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) model to assess bowel cleanliness and evaluate its clinical applicability.A still image‐driven AI model to assess the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) was developed and validated using 2361 colonoscopy images. For evaluating real‐world applicability, the model was validated using 113 10‐s colonoscopy video clips and 30 full colonoscopy videos to identify “adequate (BBPS 2–3)” or “inadequate (BBPS 0–1)” preparation. The model was tested with an external dataset of 29 colonoscopy videos. The clinical applicability of the model was evaluated using 225 consecutive colonoscopies. Inter‐rater variability was analyzed between the AI model and endoscopists.The AI model achieved an accuracy of 94.0% and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.939 with the still images. Model testing with an external dataset showed an accuracy of 95.3%, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.976, and a sensitivity of 100% for the detection of inadequate preparations. The clinical applicability study showed an overall agreement rate of 85.3% between endoscopists and the AI model, with Fleiss' kappa of 0.686. The agreement rate was lower for the right colon compared with the transverse and left colon, with Fleiss' kappa of 0.563, 0.575, and 0.789, respectively.The AI model demonstrated accurate bowel preparation assessment and substantial agreement with endoscopists. Further refinement of the AI model is warranted for effective monitoring of qualified colonoscopy in large‐scale screening programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Automated methods for prostate segmentation on MRI are typically developed under ideal scanning and anatomical conditions. This study evaluates three different prostate segmentation AI algorithms in a challenging population of patients with prior treatments, variable anatomic characteristics, complex clinical history, or atypical MRI acquisition parameters. Materials and methods: A single institution retrospective database was queried for the following conditions at prostate MRI: prior prostate-specific oncologic treatment, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), abdominal perineal resection (APR), hip prosthesis (HP), diversity of prostate volumes (large ≥ 150 cc, small ≤ 25 cc), whole gland tumor burden, magnet strength, noted poor quality, and various scanners (outside/vendors). Final inclusion criteria required availability of axial T2-weighted (T2W) sequence and corresponding prostate organ segmentation from an expert radiologist. Three previously developed algorithms were evaluated: (1) deep learning (DL)-based model, (2) commercially available shape-based model, and (3) federated DL-based model. Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC) was calculated compared to expert. DSC by model and scan factors were evaluated with Wilcox signed-rank test and linear mixed effects (LMER) model. Results: 683 scans (651 patients) met inclusion criteria (mean prostate volume 60.1 cc [9.05–329 cc]). Overall DSC scores for models 1, 2, and 3 were 0.916 (0.707–0.971), 0.873 (0–0.997), and 0.894 (0.025–0.961), respectively, with DL-based models demonstrating significantly higher performance (p < 0.01). In sub-group analysis by factors, Model 1 outperformed Model 2 (all p < 0.05) and Model 3 (all p < 0.001). Performance of all models was negatively impacted by prostate volume and poor signal quality (p < 0.01). Shape-based factors influenced DL models (p < 0.001) while signal factors influenced all (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Factors affecting anatomical and signal conditions of the prostate gland can adversely impact both DL and non-deep learning-based segmentation models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Indocyanine green (ICG) has been used in clinical practice for more than 40 years and its safety and preferential accumulation in tumors has been reported for various tumor types, including colon cancer. However, reports on clinical assessments of ICG-based molecular endoscopy imaging for precancerous lesions are scarce. We determined visualization ability of ICG fluorescence endoscopy in colitis-associated colon cancer using 30 lesions from an azoxymethane/dextran sulfate sodium (AOM/DSS) mouse model and 16 colon cancer patient tissue-samples. With a total of 60 images (optical, fluorescence) obtained during endoscopy observation of mouse colon cancer, we used deep learning network to predict four classes (Normal, Dysplasia, Adenoma, and Carcinoma) of colorectal cancer development. ICG could detect 100% of carcinoma, 90% of adenoma, and 57% of dysplasia, with little background signal at 30 min after injection via real-time fluorescence endoscopy. Correlation analysis with immunohistochemistry revealed a positive correlation of ICG with inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS; r > 0.5). Increased expression of iNOS resulted in increased levels of cellular nitric oxide in cancer cells compared to that in normal cells, which was related to the inhibition of drug efflux via the ABCB1 transporter down-regulation resulting in delayed retention of intracellular ICG. With artificial intelligence training, the accuracy of image classification into four classes using data sets, such as fluorescence, optical, and fluorescence/optical images was assessed. Fluorescence images obtained the highest accuracy (AUC of 0.8125) than optical and fluorescence/optical images (AUC of 0.75 and 0.6667, respectively). These findings highlight the clinical feasibility of ICG as a detector of precancerous lesions in real-time fluorescence endoscopy with artificial intelligence training and suggest that the mechanism of ICG retention in cancer cells is related to intracellular nitric oxide concentration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cardiovascular border (CB) analysis is the primary method for detecting and quantifying the severity of cardiovascular disease using posterior-anterior chest radiographs (CXRs). This study aimed to develop and validate a deep learning–based automatic CXR CB analysis algorithm (CB_auto) for diagnosing and quantitatively evaluating valvular heart disease (VHD). Methods: We developed CB_auto using 816 normal and 798 VHD CXRs. For validation, 640 normal and 542 VHD CXRs from three different hospitals and 132 CXRs from a public dataset were assigned. The reliability of the CB parameters determined by CB_auto was evaluated. To evaluate the differences between parameters determined by CB_auto and manual CB drawing (CB_hand), the absolute percentage measurement error (APE) was calculated. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between CB_hand and echocardiographic measurements. Results: CB parameters determined by CB_auto yielded excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.98). The 95% limits of agreement for the cardiothoracic ratio were 0.00 ± 0.04% without systemic bias. The differences between parameters determined by CB_auto and CB_hand as defined by the APE were < 10% for all parameters except for carinal angle and left atrial appendage. In the public dataset, all CB parameters were successfully drawn in 124 of 132 CXRs (93.9%). All CB parameters were significantly greater in VHD than in normal controls (all p < 0.05). All CB parameters showed significant correlations (p < 0.05) with echocardiographic measurements. Conclusions: The CB_auto system empowered by deep learning algorithm provided highly reliable CB measurements that could be useful not only in daily clinical practice but also for research purposes. Key Points: • A deep learning–based automatic CB analysis algorithm for diagnosing and quantitatively evaluating VHD using posterior-anterior chest radiographs was developed and validated. • Our algorithm (CB_auto) yielded comparable reliability to manual CB drawing (CB_hand) in terms of various CB measurement variables, as confirmed by external validation with datasets from three different hospitals and a public dataset. • All CB parameters were significantly different between VHD and normal control measurements, and echocardiographic measurements were significantly correlated with CB parameters measured from normal control and VHD CXRs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]