Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer using multi-parametric MRI: comparison between PUN and Tofts models. (30th April 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mazzetti, S; Giannini, V; Russo, F; Regge, D
• Is Part Of: Physics in medicine & biology. Volume 63:Number 9(2018:May)
• Publication Date: 2018-04-30
• Subjects: CAD system -- prostate cancer -- multi-parametric MRI -- segmentation quality; Biophysics -- Periodicals; Medical physics -- Periodicals; 610.153
• DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/aab956
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9155

Abstract

Abstract: Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems are increasingly being used in clinical settings to report multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) of the prostate. Usually, CAD systems automatically highlight cancer-suspicious regions to the radiologist, reducing reader variability and interpretation errors. Nevertheless, implementing this software requires the selection of which mp-MRI parameters can best discriminate between malignant and non-malignant regions. To exploit functional information, some parameters are derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) acquisitions. In particular, much CAD software employs pharmacokinetic features, such as K trans and k ep, derived from the Tofts model, to estimate a likelihood map of malignancy. However, non-pharmacokinetic models can be also used to describe DCE-MRI curves, without any requirement for prior knowledge or measurement of the arterial input function, which could potentially lead to large errors in parameter estimation. In this work, we implemented an empirical function derived from the phenomenological universalities (PUN) class to fit DCE-MRI. The parameters of the PUN model are used in combination with T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted acquisitions to feed a support vector machine classifier to produce a voxel-wise malignancy likelihood map of the prostate. The results were all compared to those for a CAD system based on Tofts pharmacokinetic features to describe DCE-MRI curves, using different quality aspects of image segmentation, while also evaluating the number and size of false positive (FP) candidate regions. This study included 61 patients with 70 biopsy-proven prostate cancers (PCa). The metrics used to evaluate segmentation quality between the two CAD systems were not statistically different, although the PUN-based CAD reported a lower number of FP, with reduced size compared to the Tofts-based CAD. In conclusion, the CAD software based on PUN parameters is a feasible means with which to detect PCa, without affecting segmentation quality, and hence it could be successfully applied in clinical settings, improving the automated diagnosis process and reducing computational complexity.