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]

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]

Objectives: To evaluate commercial deep learning–based software for fully automated coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)-gated low-dose CT (LDCT) with different slice thicknesses compared with manual ECG-gated calcium-scoring CT (CSCT). Methods: This retrospective study included 567 patients who underwent both LDCT and CSCT. All LDCT images were reconstructed with a 2.5-mm slice thickness (LDCT2.5-mm), and 453 LDCT scans were reconstructed with a 1.0-mm slice thickness (LDCT1.0-mm). Automated CAC scoring was performed on CSCT (CSCTauto), LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm images. The reliability of CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm was compared with manual CSCT scoring (CSCTmanual) using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman analysis. Agreement, in CAC severity category, was analyzed using weighted kappa statistics. Diagnostic performance at various Agatston score cutoffs was also calculated. Results: CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mm demonstrated excellent agreement with CSCTmanual (ICC [95% confidence interval, CI]: 1.000 [1.000, 1.000], 0.937 [0.917, 0.952], and 0.955 [0.946, 0.963], respectively). The mean difference with 95% limits of agreement was lower with LDCT1.0-mm than with LDCT2.5-mm (19.94 [95% CI, −244.0, 283.9] vs. 45.26 [−248.2, 338.7]). Regarding CAC severity, LDCT1.0-mm achieved almost perfect agreement, and LDCT2.5-mm achieved substantial agreement (kappa [95% CI]: 0.809 [0.776, 0.838], 0.776 [0.740, 0.809], respectively). Diagnostic performance for detecting Agatston score ≥ 400 was also higher with LDCT1.0-mm than with LDCT2.5-mm (F1 score, 0.929 vs. 0.855). Conclusions: Fully automated CAC-scoring software with both CSCT and LDCT yielded excellent reliability and agreement with CSCTmanual. LDCT1.0-mm yielded more accurate Agatston scoring than LDCT2.5-mm using fully automated commercial software. Key Points: • Total Agatston scores and all vessels of CSCTauto, LDCT1.0-mm, and LDCT2.5-mmdemonstrated excellent agreement with CSCTmanual(all ICC > 0.85). • The diagnostic performance for detecting all Agatston score cutoffs was better with LDCT1.0-mmthan with LDCT2.5-mm. • This automated software yielded a lower degree of underestimation compared with methods described in previous studies, and the degree of underestimation was lower with LDCT1.0-mmthan with LDCT2.5-mm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To validate an artificial intelligence (AI)–based fully automatic coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring system on non-electrocardiogram (ECG)–gated low-dose chest computed tomography (LDCT) using multi-institutional datasets with manual CAC scoring as the reference standard. Methods: This retrospective study included 452 subjects from three academic institutions, who underwent both ECG-gated calcium scoring computed tomography (CSCT) and LDCT scans. For all CSCT and LDCT scans, automatic CAC scoring (CAC_auto) was performed using AI-based software, and manual CAC scoring (CAC_man) was set as the reference standard. The reliability and agreement of CAC_auto was evaluated and compared with that of CAC_man using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. The reliability between CAC_auto and CAC_man for CAC severity categories was analyzed using weighted kappa (κ) statistics. Results: CAC_auto on CSCT and LDCT yielded a high ICC (0.998, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.998–0.999 and 0.989, 95% CI 0.987–0.991, respectively) and a mean difference with 95% limits of agreement of 1.3 ± 37.1 and 0.8 ± 75.7, respectively. CAC_auto achieved excellent reliability for CAC severity (κ = 0.918–0.972) on CSCT and good to excellent but heterogenous reliability among datasets (κ = 0.748–0.924) on LDCT. Conclusions: The application of an AI-based automatic CAC scoring software to LDCT shows good to excellent reliability in CAC score and CAC severity categorization in multi-institutional datasets; however, the reliability varies among institutions. Key Points: • AI-based automatic CAC scoring on LDCT shows excellent reliability with manual CAC scoring in multi-institutional datasets. • The reliability for CAC score–based severity categorization varies among datasets. • Automatic scoring for LDCT shows a higher false-positive rate than automatic scoring for CSCT, and most common causes of a false-positive are image noise and artifacts for both CSCT and LDCT. [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]

We aimed to develop a computer-aided diagnostic system (CAD) for predicting colorectal polyp histology using deep-learning technology and to validate its performance. Near-focus narrow-band imaging (NBI) pictures of colorectal polyps were retrieved from the database of our institution. Of these, 12480 image patches of 624 polyps were used as a training set to develop the CAD. The CAD performance was validated with two test datasets of 545 polyps. Polyps were classified into three histological groups: serrated polyp (SP), benign adenoma (BA)/mucosal or superficial submucosal cancer (MSMC), and deep submucosal cancer (DSMC). The overall kappa value measuring the agreement between the true polyp histology and the expected histology by the CAD was 0.614–0.642, which was higher than that of trainees (n = 6, endoscopists with experience of 100 NBI colonoscopies in <6 months; 0.368–0.401) and almost comparable with that of the experts (n = 3, endoscopists with experience of 2,500 NBI colonoscopies in ≥5 years) (0.649–0.735). The areas under the receiver operating curves for CAD were 0.93–0.95, 0.86–0.89, and 0.89–0.91 for SP, BA/MSMC, and DSMC, respectively. The overall diagnostic accuracy of the CAD was 81.3–82.4%, which was significantly higher than that of the trainees (63.8–71.8%, P < 0.01) and comparable with that of experts (82.4–87.3%). The kappa value and diagnostic accuracies of the trainees improved with CAD assistance: that is, the kappa value increased from 0.368 to 0.655, and the overall diagnostic accuracy increased from 63.8–71.8% to 82.7–84.2%. CAD using a deep-learning model can accurately assess polyp histology and may facilitate the diagnosis of colorectal polyps by endoscopists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]