scholarly journals Effect of domain knowledge encoding in CNN model architecture—a prostate cancer study using mpMRI images

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e11006
Author(s):  
Piotr Sobecki ◽  
Rafał Jóźwiak ◽  
Katarzyna Sklinda ◽  
Artur Przelaskowski

Background Prostate cancer is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Currently, convolution neural networks (CNNs) are achieving remarkable success in various computer vision tasks, and in medical imaging research. Various CNN architectures and methodologies have been applied in the field of prostate cancer diagnosis. In this work, we evaluate the impact of the adaptation of a state-of-the-art CNN architecture on domain knowledge related to problems in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. The architecture of the final CNN model was optimised on the basis of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) standard, which is currently the best available indicator in the acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of prostate multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examinations. Methods A dataset containing 330 suspicious findings identified using mpMRI was used. Two CNN models were subjected to comparative analysis. Both implement the concept of decision-level fusion for mpMRI data, providing a separate network for each multi-parametric series. The first model implements a simple fusion of multi-parametric features to formulate the final decision. The architecture of the second model reflects the diagnostic pathway of PI-RADS methodology, using information about a lesion’s primary anatomic location within the prostate gland. Both networks were experimentally tuned to successfully classify prostate cancer changes. Results The optimised knowledge-encoded model achieved slightly better classification results compared with the traditional model architecture (AUC = 0.84 vs. AUC = 0.82). We found the proposed model to achieve convergence significantly faster. Conclusions The final knowledge-encoded CNN model provided more stable learning performance and faster convergence to optimal diagnostic accuracy. The results fail to demonstrate that PI-RADS-based modelling of CNN architecture can significantly improve performance of prostate cancer recognition using mpMRI.


2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
V. Scattoni ◽  
M. Roscigno ◽  
M. Freschi ◽  
M. Raber ◽  
F. Dehò ◽  
...  


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628722199718
Author(s):  
Anna Saltman ◽  
Joseph Zegar ◽  
Monzer Haj-Hamed ◽  
Sadhna Verma ◽  
Abhinav Sidana

Several advancements have been made in recent years with regards to the detection and evaluation of prostate cancer (PCa). The low specificity of prostate specific antigen (PSA) has left much to be desired in a test, but a boom in novel biomarkers has made screening and surveillance more complicated. Several attempts at identifying a niche for these tests has helped somewhat, but much is still undetermined about the benefit that each test provides. In addition to laboratory tests, advancements in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and PIRADSv.2 scoring have provided significant benefit to the evaluation of PCa. With the widespread use of prostate imaging, it is important to re-evaluate the impact of novel biomarkers in the context of furthering PCa screening and management. In this review, we aim to assess the influence mpMRI has on the role of nine different novel biomarkers in the detection and evaluation of PCa. We performed a review of current peer-reviewed literature to assess this question. Much data has been published on the role of these tests, allowing for their placement into one of three best-fit categories: tests for biopsy-naïve men (Prostate Health Index, Mi Prostate Score, 4K Score); tests for men with prior negative biopsies (ConfirmMDx, Progensa PCA3); and men on active surveillance (OncotypeDx, Prolaris, Decipher). Data on the role of these tests with the use of mpMRI have not been comprehensive and excludes several of the markers. More research is needed to determine the combined impact mpMRI and the novel biomarkers on the evaluation and management of PCa.



2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pegah Khosravi ◽  
Maria Lysandrou ◽  
Mahmoud Eljalby ◽  
Matthew Brendel ◽  
Qianzi Li ◽  
...  

AbstractMagnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is routinely used to visualize the prostate gland and manage prostate cancer. The Prostate Imaging Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS) is used to evaluate the clinical risk associated with a potential tumor. However the PI-RADS score is subjective and its assessment varies between physicians. As a result, a definite diagnosis of prostate cancer requires a biopsy to obtain tissue for pathologic analysis. A prostate biopsy is an invasive procedure and is associated with complications, including hematospermia, hematuria, and rectal bleeding.We hypothesized that an Artificial Intelligence (AI) can be trained on prostate cases where both imaging and biopsy are available to distinguish aggressive prostate cancer from non-aggressive lesions using MRI imaging only, that is, without the need for a biopsy.Our computational method, named AI-biopsy, can distinguish aggressive prostate cancer from non-aggressive disease with an AUC of 0.855 and a 79.02% accuracy. We used Class Activation Maps (CAM) to highlight which regions of MRI images are being used by our algorithm for classification, and found that AI-biopsy generally focuses on the same regions that trained uro-radiolosts focus on, with a few exceptions. In conclusion, AI-biopsy provides a data-driven and reproducible way to assess cancer aggressiveness from MRI images and a personalized strategy to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies.



2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
F. A. Carpagnano ◽  
L. Eusebi ◽  
S. Carriero ◽  
W. Giannubilo ◽  
F. Bartelli ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose of Review The main purpose of this paper review is to highlight the latest ultrasound (US) imaging technologies of the prostate gland, an organ increasingly at the center of attention in the field of oncological diseases of the male sex, which needs a 360° evaluation in order to obtain tailored therapeutic planning. Specialist urological evaluation is designated for this purpose, together with integrated prostate imaging which currently tends to focus more and more on the use of US imaging and its state-of-the-art technologies in iconographic diagnosis, biopsy and, sometimes, treatment of prostatic cancer. Recent Findings In particular, the main tools to which reference is made, represent a valid aid to basic US technologies already widely known and diffused, like the grayscale US or the Doppler US, for a "multiparametric" evaluation of the prostate cancer. The concept of multiparametricity is explained by the integration of prostate imaging obtained both with the US evaluation of the gland before and after administration of contrast medium, with the elaboration of parametric maps of quantitative measurement of the enhancement, and with elastography that provides information about the tissue consistency, a finding that strongly relates with the degree of cellularity and with the tumor grading. Summary Prostate cancer screening consists of dosing serum levels of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and performing digit-rectal examination (DRE), more or less associated with transrectal prostate ultrasound (TRUS). However, although these are the most common techniques in clinical practice, they have numerous limitations and make the diagnosis of prostate cancer often challenging. The purpose of mp-US is to enrich the clinical-laboratory data and, above all, the standard US imaging with further details to strengthen the suspicion of malignancy of a prostate tumor, which needs to be addressed to diagnostic deepening with biopsy. This review article provides a summary of the current evidence on mp-US imaging in the evaluation of a clinically significant prostate cancer, comparing the data obtained to the imaging of mp-MRI, the reference tool both in diagnosis and staging.



2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 559-559
Author(s):  
Alexandre E. Pelzer ◽  
Jasmin Bektic ◽  
Wolfgang Harninger ◽  
Georg Schaefer ◽  
Christian Schwentner ◽  
...  


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 95-95
Author(s):  
Atreya Dash ◽  
Peng Lee ◽  
Qin Zhou ◽  
Aaron D. Berger ◽  
Jerome Jean-Gilles ◽  
...  


2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 42-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin P. Weinfurt ◽  
Liana D. Castel ◽  
Yun Li ◽  
Fred Saad ◽  
Justin W. Timbie ◽  
...  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document