The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Portrait of Sophia Zackrisson. Photo

Sophia Zackrisson

Research group manager, Principal investigator, Professor, MD

Portrait of Sophia Zackrisson. Photo

Deep learning algorithm performs similarly to radiologists in the assessment of prostate volume on MRI

Author

  • Erick Thimansson
  • J. Bengtsson
  • E. Baubeta
  • J. Engman
  • D. Flondell-Sité
  • A. Bjartell
  • S. Zackrisson

Summary, in English

Objectives

Prostate volume (PV) in combination with prostate specific antigen (PSA) yields PSA density which is an increasingly important biomarker. Calculating PV from MRI is a time-consuming, radiologist-dependent task. The aim of this study was to assess whether a deep learning algorithm can replace PI-RADS 2.1 based ellipsoid formula (EF) for calculating PV.
Methods

Eight different measures of PV were retrospectively collected for each of 124 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and preoperative MRI of the prostate (multicenter and multi-scanner MRI’s 1.5 and 3 T). Agreement between volumes obtained from the deep learning algorithm (PVDL) and ellipsoid formula by two radiologists (PVEF1 and PVEF2) was evaluated against the reference standard PV obtained by manual planimetry by an expert radiologist (PVMPE). A sensitivity analysis was performed using a prostatectomy specimen as the reference standard. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated between the radiologists using the ellipsoid formula and between the expert and inexperienced radiologists performing manual planimetry.
Results

PVDL showed better agreement and precision than PVEF1 and PVEF2 using the reference standard PVMPE (mean difference [95% limits of agreement] PVDL: −0.33 [−10.80; 10.14], PVEF1: −3.83 [−19.55; 11.89], PVEF2: −3.05 [−18.55; 12.45]) or the PV determined based on specimen weight (PVDL: −4.22 [−22.52; 14.07], PVEF1: −7.89 [−30.50; 14.73], PVEF2: −6.97 [−30.13; 16.18]). Inter-reader agreement was excellent between the two experienced radiologists using the ellipsoid formula and was good between expert and inexperienced radiologists performing manual planimetry.
Conclusion

Deep learning algorithm performs similarly to radiologists in the assessment of prostate volume on MRI.
Key Points

• A commercially available deep learning algorithm performs similarly to radiologists in the assessment of prostate volume on MRI.

• The deep-learning algorithm was previously untrained on this heterogenous multicenter day-to-day practice MRI data set.

Department/s

  • LUCC: Lund University Cancer Centre
  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö
  • Department of Translational Medicine
  • Diagnostic Radiology, (Lund)
  • Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund
  • Urological cancer, Malmö
  • eSSENCE: The e-Science Collaboration
  • EpiHealth: Epidemiology for Health

Publishing year

2023

Language

English

Pages

2519-2528

Publication/Series

European Radiology

Volume

33

Document type

Journal article

Publisher

Springer

Topic

  • Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging
  • Cancer and Oncology

Keywords

  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Prostate neoplasms
  • Deep learning
  • Prostate-specific antigen

Status

Published

Research group

  • Radiology Diagnostics, Malmö
  • Urological cancer, Malmö

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 0938-7994