» Articles » PMID: 36091110

Machine Learning Prediction of Prostate Cancer from Transrectal Ultrasound Video Clips

Overview
Journal Front Oncol
Specialty Oncology
Date 2022 Sep 12
PMID 36091110
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To build a machine learning (ML) prediction model for prostate cancer (PCa) from transrectal ultrasound video clips of the whole prostate gland, diagnostic performance was compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Methods: We systematically collated data from 501 patients-276 with prostate cancer and 225 with benign lesions. From a final selection of 231 patients (118 with prostate cancer and 113 with benign lesions), we randomly chose 170 for the purpose of training and validating a machine learning model, while using the remaining 61 to test a derived model. We extracted 851 features from ultrasound video clips. After dimensionality reduction with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, 14 features were finally selected and the support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF) algorithms were used to establish radiomics models based on those features. In addition, we creatively proposed a machine learning models aided diagnosis algorithm (MLAD) composed of SVM, RF, and radiologists' diagnosis based on MRI to evaluate the performance of ML models in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD). We evaluated the area under the curve (AUC) as well as the sensitivity, specificity, and precision of the ML models and radiologists' diagnosis based on MRI by employing receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) analysis.

Results: The AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and precision of the SVM in the diagnosis of PCa in the validation set and the test set were 0.78, 63%, 80%; 0.75, 65%, and 67%, respectively. Additionally, the SVM model was found to be superior to senior radiologists' (SR, more than 10 years of experience) diagnosis based on MRI (AUC, 0.78 vs. 0.75 in the validation set and 0.75 vs. 0.72 in the test set), and the difference was statistically significant (< 0.05).

Conclusion: The prediction model constructed by the ML algorithm has good diagnostic efficiency for prostate cancer. The SVM model's diagnostic efficiency is superior to that of MRI, as it has a more focused application value. Overall, these prediction models can aid radiologists in making better diagnoses.

Citing Articles

Machine learning in image-based outcome prediction after radiotherapy: A review.

Yuan X, Ma C, Hu M, Qiu R, Salari E, Martini R J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2024; 26(1):e14559.

PMID: 39556691 PMC: 11712300. DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14559.


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.


Three-dimensional convolutional neural network model to identify clinically significant prostate cancer in transrectal ultrasound videos: a prospective, multi-institutional, diagnostic study.

Sun Y, Zhou B, Miao Y, Shi Y, Xu S, Wu D EClinicalMedicine. 2023; 60:102027.

PMID: 37333662 PMC: 10276260. DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102027.


Artificial intelligence applications in prostate cancer.

Baydoun A, Jia A, Zaorsky N, Kashani R, Rao S, Shoag J Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2023; 27(1):37-45.

PMID: 37296271 DOI: 10.1038/s41391-023-00684-0.


Comparison of machine learning models based on multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound videos for the prediction of prostate cancer.

Qi X, Wang K, Feng B, Sun X, Yang J, Hu Z Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1157949.

PMID: 37260984 PMC: 10227569. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1157949.


References
1.
Bi W, Hosny A, Schabath M, Giger M, Birkbak N, Mehrtash A . Artificial intelligence in cancer imaging: Clinical challenges and applications. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019; 69(2):127-157. PMC: 6403009. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21552. View

2.
Katahira K, Takahara T, Kwee T, Oda S, Suzuki Y, Morishita S . Ultra-high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the detection of prostate cancer: evaluation in 201 cases with histopathological correlation. Eur Radiol. 2010; 21(1):188-96. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1883-7. View

3.
Merriel S, Pocock L, Gilbert E, Creavin S, Walter F, Spencer A . Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients. BMC Med. 2022; 20(1):54. PMC: 8819971. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-021-02230-y. View

4.
Kim C, Park B . Update of prostate magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32(2):163-72. DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3180683b99. View

5.
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A . Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021; 71(3):209-249. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21660. View