» Articles » PMID: 34255161

Comparative Performance of MRI-derived PRECISE Scores and Delta-radiomics Models for the Prediction of Prostate Cancer Progression in Patients on Active Surveillance

Overview
Journal Eur Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Jul 13
PMID 34255161
Citations 26
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To compare the performance of the PRECISE scoring system against several MRI-derived delta-radiomics models for predicting histopathological prostate cancer (PCa) progression in patients on active surveillance (AS).

Methods: The study included AS patients with biopsy-proven PCa with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and at least one repeat targeted biopsy. Histopathological progression was defined as grade group progression from diagnostic biopsy. The control group included patients with both radiologically and histopathologically stable disease. PRECISE scores were applied prospectively by four uro-radiologists with 5-16 years' experience. T2WI- and ADC-derived delta-radiomics features were computed using baseline and latest available MRI scans, with the predictive modelling performed using the parenclitic networks (PN), least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression, and random forests (RF) algorithms. Standard measures of discrimination and areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) were calculated, with AUCs compared using DeLong's test.

Results: The study included 64 patients (27 progressors and 37 non-progressors) with a median follow-up of 46 months. PRECISE scores had the highest specificity (94.7%) and positive predictive value (90.9%), whilst RF had the highest sensitivity (92.6%) and negative predictive value (92.6%) for predicting disease progression. The AUC for PRECISE (84.4%) was non-significantly higher than AUCs of 81.5%, 78.0%, and 80.9% for PN, LASSO regression, and RF, respectively (p = 0.64, 0.43, and 0.57, respectively). No significant differences were observed between AUCs of the three delta-radiomics models (p-value range 0.34-0.77).

Conclusions: PRECISE and delta-radiomics models achieved comparably good performance for predicting PCa progression in AS patients.

Key Points: • The observed high specificity and PPV of PRECISE are complemented by the high sensitivity and NPV of delta-radiomics, suggesting a possible synergy between the two image assessment approaches. • The comparable performance of delta-radiomics to PRECISE scores applied by expert readers highlights the prospective use of the former as an objective and standardisable quantitative tool for MRI-guided AS follow-up. • The marginally superior performance of parenclitic networks compared to conventional machine learning algorithms warrants its further use in radiomics research.

Citing Articles

Repeatability, reproducibility, and the effects of radiotherapy on radiomic features of lowfield MR-LINAC images of the prostate.

Anderson P, Dogan N, Ford J, Padgett K, Simpson G, Stoyanova R Front Oncol. 2025; 14:1408752.

PMID: 39902123 PMC: 11788350. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2024.1408752.


Delta radiomics: an updated systematic review.

Nardone V, Reginelli A, Rubini D, Gagliardi F, Del Tufo S, Belfiore M Radiol Med. 2024; 129(8):1197-1214.

PMID: 39017760 PMC: 11322237. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-024-01853-4.


Radiomic Pipelines for Prostate Cancer in External Beam Radiation Therapy: A Review of Methods and Future Directions.

Mendes B, Domingues I, Santos J J Clin Med. 2024; 13(13).

PMID: 38999473 PMC: 11242211. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13133907.


Non-invasively identifying candidates of active surveillance for prostate cancer using magnetic resonance imaging radiomics.

Liu Y, Zhao L, Bao J, Hou J, Jing Z, Liu S Vis Comput Ind Biomed Art. 2024; 7(1):16.

PMID: 38967824 PMC: 11226574. DOI: 10.1186/s42492-024-00167-6.


[Ga]Ga‑PSMA‑617 PET-based radiomics model to identify candidates for active surveillance amongst patients with GGG 1-2 prostate cancer at biopsy.

Yang J, Xiao L, Zhou M, Li Y, Cai Y, Gan Y Cancer Imaging. 2024; 24(1):86.

PMID: 38965552 PMC: 11229016. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-024-00735-2.


References
1.
Barrett T, Haider M . The Emerging Role of MRI in Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance and Ongoing Challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016; 208(1):131-139. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.16.16355. View

2.
Moore C, Giganti F, Albertsen P, Allen C, Bangma C, Briganti A . Reporting Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Men on Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: The PRECISE Recommendations-A Report of a European School of Oncology Task Force. Eur Urol. 2016; 71(4):648-655. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.06.011. View

3.
Whitwell H, Blyuss O, Menon U, Timms J, Zaikin A . Parenclitic networks for predicting ovarian cancer. Oncotarget. 2018; 9(32):22717-22726. PMC: 5978260. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25216. View

4.
Gillies R, Kinahan P, Hricak H . Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data. Radiology. 2015; 278(2):563-77. PMC: 4734157. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015151169. View

5.
Kinsella N, Helleman J, Bruinsma S, Carlsson S, Cahill D, Brown C . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: a systematic review of contemporary worldwide practices. Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7(1):83-97. PMC: 5861285. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.12.24. View