Fully Automatic Deep Learning in Bi-institutional Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Effects of Cohort Size and Heterogeneity.

Background: The potential of deep learning to support radiologist prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) interpretation has been demonstrated.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of increased and diversified training data (TD) on deep learning performance for detection and segmentation of clinically significant prostate cancer-suspicious lesions.

Materials And Methods: In this retrospective study, biparametric (T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted) prostate MRI acquired with multiple 1.5-T and 3.0-T MRI scanners in consecutive men was used for training and testing of prostate segmentation and lesion detection networks. Ground truth was the combination of targeted and extended systematic MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies, with significant prostate cancer defined as International Society of Urological Pathology grade group greater than or equal to 2. U-Nets were internally validated on full, reduced, and PROSTATEx-enhanced training sets and subsequently externally validated on the institutional test set and the PROSTATEx test set. U-Net segmentation was calibrated to clinically desired levels in cross-validation, and test performance was subsequently compared using sensitivities, specificities, predictive values, and Dice coefficient.

Results: One thousand four hundred eighty-eight institutional examinations (median age, 64 years; interquartile range, 58-70 years) were temporally split into training (2014-2017, 806 examinations, supplemented by 204 PROSTATEx examinations) and test (2018-2020, 682 examinations) sets. In the test set, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) cutoffs greater than or equal to 3 and greater than or equal to 4 on a per-patient basis had sensitivity of 97% (241/249) and 90% (223/249) at specificity of 19% (82/433) and 56% (242/433), respectively. The full U-Net had corresponding sensitivity of 97% (241/249) and 88% (219/249) with specificity of 20% (86/433) and 59% (254/433), not statistically different from PI-RADS (P > 0.3 for all comparisons). U-Net trained using a reduced set of 171 consecutive examinations achieved inferior performance (P < 0.001). PROSTATEx training enhancement did not improve performance. Dice coefficients were 0.90 for prostate and 0.42/0.53 for MRI lesion segmentation at PI-RADS category 3/4 equivalents.

Conclusions: In a large institutional test set, U-Net confirms similar performance to clinical PI-RADS assessment and benefits from more TD, with neither institutional nor PROSTATEx performance improved by adding multiscanner or bi-institutional TD.