Automated deep-learning system in the assessment of MRI-visible prostate cancer: comparison of advanced zoomed diffusion-weighted imaging and conventional technique
Deep-learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) systems using MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) detection have demonstrated good performance. Nevertheless, DL-CAD systems are vulnerable to high heterogeneities in DWI, which can interfere with DL-CAD assessments and impair performance. This study a...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cancer imaging 2023-01, Vol.23 (1), p.6-6, Article 6 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Deep-learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) systems using MRI for prostate cancer (PCa) detection have demonstrated good performance. Nevertheless, DL-CAD systems are vulnerable to high heterogeneities in DWI, which can interfere with DL-CAD assessments and impair performance. This study aims to compare PCa detection of DL-CAD between zoomed-field-of-view echo-planar DWI (z-DWI) and full-field-of-view DWI (f-DWI) and find the risk factors affecting DL-CAD diagnostic efficiency.
This retrospective study enrolled 354 consecutive participants who underwent MRI including T2WI, f-DWI, and z-DWI because of clinically suspected PCa. A DL-CAD was used to compare the performance of f-DWI and z-DWI both on a patient level and lesion level. We used the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics analysis and alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics analysis to compare the performances of DL-CAD using f- DWI and z-DWI. The risk factors affecting the DL-CAD were analyzed using logistic regression analyses. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
DL-CAD with z-DWI had a significantly better overall accuracy than that with f-DWI both on patient level and lesion level (AUC
: 0.89 vs. 0.86; AUC
: 0.86 vs. 0.76; P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1470-7330 1740-5025 1470-7330 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s40644-023-00527-0 |