Background: The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) provides guidelines for risk stratification of lesions detected on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) of the prostate but suffers from high intra/interreader variability.
Purpose: To develop an artificial intelligence (AI) solution for PI-RADS classification and compare its performance with an expert radiologist using targeted biopsy results.
Study Type: Retrospective study including data from our institution and the publicly available ProstateX dataset.
Population: In all, 687 patients who underwent mpMRI of the prostate and had one or more detectable lesions (PI-RADS score >1) according to PI-RADSv2.
Field Strength/sequence: T -weighted, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI; five evenly spaced b values between b = 0-750 s/mm ) for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping, high b-value DWI (b = 1500 or 2000 s/mm ), and dynamic contrast-enhanced T -weighted series were obtained at 3.0T.
Assessment: PI-RADS lesions were segmented by a radiologist. Bounding boxes around the T /ADC/high-b value segmentations were stacked and saved as JPEGs. These images were used to train a convolutional neural network (CNN). The PI-RADS scores obtained by the CNN were compared with radiologist scores. The cancer detection rate was measured from a subset of patients who underwent biopsy.
Statistical Tests: Agreement between the AI and the radiologist-driven PI-RADS scores was assessed using a kappa score, and differences between categorical variables were assessed with a Wald test.
Results: For the 1034 detection lesions, the kappa score for the AI system vs. the expert radiologist was moderate, at 0.40. However, there was no significant difference in the rates of detection of clinically significant cancer for any PI-RADS score in 86 patients undergoing targeted biopsy (P = 0.4-0.6).
Data Conclusion: We developed an AI system for assignment of a PI-RADS score on segmented lesions on mpMRI with moderate agreement with an expert radiologist and a similar ability to detect clinically significant cancer.
Level Of Evidence: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8942293 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27204 | DOI Listing |
J Chiropr Med
December 2024
Department of Chiropractic, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada.
Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the methodological quality of the 2016 Society on Scoliosis Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Treatment (SOSORT) guidelines for the detection and management of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.
Methods: A diverse group of experts, including practicing chiropractors, chiropractors with a Diplomate by the American Chiropractic Board of Radiology, chiropractors with PhD degrees, and chiropractors involved in teaching within chiropractic programs was invited to participate in the study. Experts independently evaluated the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool.
Orthod Craniofac Res
January 2025
Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Objectives: Radiographs are routinely acquired for orthodontic evaluation, and incidental findings (IFs) may be detected early as part of this routine care. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of IFs on panoramic radiographs taken for orthodontic assessment and evaluate the ability of orthodontists to detect, interpret and recommend management for IFs.
Materials And Methods: A retrospective analysis of 1756 patients aged 7-21 with a panoramic image taken for orthodontic evaluation was performed.
Eur J Radiol
December 2024
Department of Radiology, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Rationale And Objectives: Accurate assessment of hip morphology is crucial for the diagnosis and management of hip pathologies. Traditional manual measurements are prone to mistakes and inter- and intra-reader variability. Artificial intelligence (AI) could mitigate such issues by providing accurate and reproducible measurements.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEClinicalMedicine
August 2024
Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Background: Lung cancer screening recommendations employ annual frequency for eligible individuals, despite evidence that it may not be universally optimal. The impact of imposing a structure on the screening frequency remains unknown. The ENGAGE framework, a validated framework that offers fully dynamic, analytically optimal, personalised lung cancer screening recommendations, could be used to assess the impact of screening structure on the effectiveness and efficiency of lung cancer screening.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEur J Radiol Open
June 2025
Institution of Molecular Medicine and Surgery (MMK), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Background: High-quality assessment of prostate MRI is fundamental in both clinical practice and screening. There is a lack of national level data on variability in prostate volume measurement and PI-RADS assessment. Methods of quality assurance need to be developed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!