» Articles » PMID: 38451359

The Distinct Roles of Reinforcement Learning Between Pre-procedure and Intra-procedure Planning for Prostate Biopsy

Overview
Publisher Springer
Date 2024 Mar 7
PMID 38451359
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging targeted prostate cancer (PCa) biopsy enables precise sampling of MR-detected lesions, establishing its importance in recommended clinical practice. Planning for the ultrasound-guided procedure involves pre-selecting needle sampling positions. However, performing this procedure is subject to a number of factors, including MR-to-ultrasound registration, intra-procedure patient movement and soft tissue motions. When a fixed pre-procedure planning is carried out without intra-procedure adaptation, these factors will lead to sampling errors which could cause false positives and false negatives. Reinforcement learning (RL) has been proposed for procedure plannings on similar applications such as this one, because intelligent agents can be trained for both pre-procedure and intra-procedure planning. However, it is not clear if RL is beneficial when it comes to addressing these intra-procedure errors.

Methods: In this work, we develop and compare imitation learning (IL), supervised by demonstrations of predefined sampling strategy, and RL approaches, under varying degrees of intra-procedure motion and registration error, to represent sources of targeting errors likely to occur in an intra-operative procedure.

Results: Based on results using imaging data from 567 PCa patients, we demonstrate the efficacy and value in adopting RL algorithms to provide intelligent intra-procedure action suggestions, compared to IL-based planning supervised by commonly adopted policies.

Conclusions: The improvement in biopsy sampling performance for intra-procedure planning has not been observed in experiments with only pre-procedure planning. These findings suggest a strong role for RL in future prospective studies which adopt intra-procedure planning. Our open source code implementation is available here .

References
1.
Muthigi A, George A, Sidana A, Kongnyuy M, Simon R, Moreno V . Missing the Mark: Prostate Cancer Upgrading by Systematic Biopsy over Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Biopsy. J Urol. 2016; 197(2):327-334. PMC: 5241234. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.097. View

2.
Baco E, Rud E, Eri L, Moen G, Vlatkovic L, Svindland A . A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy. Eur Urol. 2015; 69(1):149-56. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.03.041. View

3.
Engels R, Israel B, Padhani A, Barentsz J . Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Detection of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer: What Urologists Need to Know. Part 1: Acquisition. Eur Urol. 2019; 77(4):457-468. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.021. View

4.
Orczyk C, Emberton M . Re: Magnetic Resonance Imaging Underestimation of Prostate Cancer Geometry: Use of Patient Specific Molds to Correlate Images with Whole Mount Pathology: A. Priester, S. Natarajan, P. Khoshnoodi, D. J. Margolis, S. S. Raman, R. E. Reiter, J. Huang,.... J Urol. 2017; 198(6):1436-1437. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.07.086. View

5.
Liang L, Cool D, Kakani N, Wang G, Ding H, Fenster A . Automatic Radiofrequency Ablation Planning for Liver Tumors With Multiple Constraints Based on Set Covering. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2019; 39(5):1459-1471. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2019.2950947. View