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]

Recent advances in deep learning for medical image segmentation demonstrate expert-level accuracy. However, application of these models in clinically realistic environments can result in poor generalization and decreased accuracy, mainly due to the domain shift across different hospitals, scanner vendors, imaging protocols, and patient populations etc. Common transfer learning and domain adaptation techniques are proposed to address this bottleneck. However, these solutions require data (and annotations) from the target domain to retrain the model, and is therefore restrictive in practice for widespread model deployment. Ideally, we wish to have a trained (locked) model that can work uniformly well across unseen domains without further training. In this paper, we propose a deep stacked transformation approach for domain generalization. Specifically, a series of ${n}$ stacked transformations are applied to each image during network training. The underlying assumption is that the “expected” domain shift for a specific medical imaging modality could be simulated by applying extensive data augmentation on a single source domain, and consequently, a deep model trained on the augmented “big” data (BigAug) could generalize well on unseen domains. We exploit four surprisingly effective, but previously understudied, image-based characteristics for data augmentation to overcome the domain generalization problem. We train and evaluate the BigAug model (with ${n}={9}$ transformations) on three different 3D segmentation tasks (prostate gland, left atrial, left ventricle) covering two medical imaging modalities (MRI and ultrasound) involving eight publicly available challenge datasets. The results show that when training on relatively small dataset (n = 10~32 volumes, depending on the size of the available datasets) from a single source domain: (i) BigAug models degrade an average of 11%(Dice score change) from source to unseen domain, substantially better than conventional augmentation (degrading 39%) and CycleGAN-based domain adaptation method (degrading 25%), (ii) BigAug is better than “shallower” stacked transforms (i.e. those with fewer transforms) on unseen domains and demonstrates modest improvement to conventional augmentation on the source domain, (iii) after training with BigAug on one source domain, performance on an unseen domain is similar to training a model from scratch on that domain when using the same number of training samples. When training on large datasets (n = 465 volumes) with BigAug, (iv) application to unseen domains reaches the performance of state-of-the-art fully supervised models that are trained and tested on their source domains. These findings establish a strong benchmark for the study of domain generalization in medical imaging, and can be generalized to the design of highly robust deep segmentation models for clinical deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]