Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models
Objective To test the ability of high-performance machine learning (ML) models employing clinical, radiological, and radiomic variables to improve non-invasive prediction of the pathological status of prostate cancer (PCa) in a large, single-institution cohort. Methods Patients who underwent multipa...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European radiology 2024-10, Vol.34 (10), p.6241-6253 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 6253 |
---|---|
container_issue | 10 |
container_start_page | 6241 |
container_title | European radiology |
container_volume | 34 |
creator | Marvaso, Giulia Isaksson, Lars Johannes Zaffaroni, Mattia Vincini, Maria Giulia Summers, Paul Eugene Pepa, Matteo Corrao, Giulia Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo Rotondi, Marco Mastroleo, Federico Raimondi, Sara Alessi, Sarah Pricolo, Paola Luzzago, Stefano Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro Ferro, Matteo Cattani, Federica Ceci, Francesco Musi, Gennaro De Cobelli, Ottavio Cremonesi, Marta Gandini, Sara La Torre, Davide Orecchia, Roberto Petralia, Giuseppe Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja |
description | Objective
To test the ability of high-performance machine learning (ML) models employing clinical, radiological, and radiomic variables to improve non-invasive prediction of the pathological status of prostate cancer (PCa) in a large, single-institution cohort.
Methods
Patients who underwent multiparametric MRI and prostatectomy in our institution in 2015–2018 were considered; a total of 949 patients were included. Gradient-boosted decision tree models were separately trained using clinical features alone and in combination with radiological reporting and/or prostate radiomic features to predict pathological T, pathological N, ISUP score, and their change from preclinical assessment. Model behavior was analyzed in terms of performance, feature importance, Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values, and mean absolute error (MAE). The best model was compared against a naïve model mimicking clinical workflow.
Results
The model including all variables was the best performing (AUC values ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 for the six endpoints). Radiomic features brought a small yet measurable boost in performance, with the SHAP values indicating that their contribution can be critical to successful prediction of endpoints for individual patients. MAEs were lower for low-risk patients, suggesting that the models find them easier to classify. The best model outperformed (
p
≤ 0.0001) clinical baseline, resulting in significantly fewer false negative predictions and overall was less prone to under-staging.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the potential benefit of integrative ML models for pathological status prediction in PCa. Additional studies regarding clinical integration of such models can provide valuable information for personalizing therapy offering a tool to improve non-invasive prediction of pathological status.
Clinical relevance statement
The best machine learning model was less prone to under-staging of the disease. The improved accuracy of our pathological prediction models could constitute an asset to the clinical workflow by providing clinicians with accurate pathological predictions prior to treatment.
Key Points
•
Currently, the most common strategies for pre-surgical stratification of prostate cancer (PCa) patients have shown to have suboptimal performances.
•
The addition of radiological features to the clinical features gave a considerable boost in model performance. Our best model outperforms the naïve model, avoiding under-staging and resulting in |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00330-024-10699-3 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2973101223</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2973101223</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-a67e58ebce606b535440cc2b44f1689235c5f5da647bc136842cc6aae034db5e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcuKFDEUhoMozjj6Ai4k4MZNae5VtRJpRh0YEURxGU4lp6oz1KVNUtP0w_iupu3xggshkBPy5Tsn_IQ85ewlZ6x-lRiTklVMqIoz07aVvEfOuZKiHBt1_6_6jDxK6YYx1nJVPyRnstGsZlqek-8bmOke6S6iDy7THeTtMi7Dge5DqdZM0xoHjIfX9CuGYRvmgeYtUvAePb2FcUW69HRaxxx2EGHCHIOjHz5dUZg93RfZUb6kDBlpBB-WKbhEw1xWxiFCDrdIJ3BFjXREiPOxx7R4HNNj8qCHMeGTu_2CfHl7-Xnzvrr--O5q8-a6clKYXIGpUTfYOTTMdFpqpZhzolOq56ZphdRO99qDUXXnuDSNEs4ZAGRS-U6jvCAvTt4y6bcVU7ZTSA7HEWZc1mRFW0vOuBCyoM__QW-WNc5lOlsQJWpeN6pQ4kS58vUUsbe7GCaIB8uZPYZnT-HZEp79GZ49qp_dqdduQv_7ya-0CiBPQCpXc0nlT-__aH8AtLinVA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3104271784</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Online Journals Complete</source><creator>Marvaso, Giulia ; Isaksson, Lars Johannes ; Zaffaroni, Mattia ; Vincini, Maria Giulia ; Summers, Paul Eugene ; Pepa, Matteo ; Corrao, Giulia ; Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo ; Rotondi, Marco ; Mastroleo, Federico ; Raimondi, Sara ; Alessi, Sarah ; Pricolo, Paola ; Luzzago, Stefano ; Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro ; Ferro, Matteo ; Cattani, Federica ; Ceci, Francesco ; Musi, Gennaro ; De Cobelli, Ottavio ; Cremonesi, Marta ; Gandini, Sara ; La Torre, Davide ; Orecchia, Roberto ; Petralia, Giuseppe ; Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</creator><creatorcontrib>Marvaso, Giulia ; Isaksson, Lars Johannes ; Zaffaroni, Mattia ; Vincini, Maria Giulia ; Summers, Paul Eugene ; Pepa, Matteo ; Corrao, Giulia ; Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo ; Rotondi, Marco ; Mastroleo, Federico ; Raimondi, Sara ; Alessi, Sarah ; Pricolo, Paola ; Luzzago, Stefano ; Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro ; Ferro, Matteo ; Cattani, Federica ; Ceci, Francesco ; Musi, Gennaro ; De Cobelli, Ottavio ; Cremonesi, Marta ; Gandini, Sara ; La Torre, Davide ; Orecchia, Roberto ; Petralia, Giuseppe ; Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
To test the ability of high-performance machine learning (ML) models employing clinical, radiological, and radiomic variables to improve non-invasive prediction of the pathological status of prostate cancer (PCa) in a large, single-institution cohort.
Methods
Patients who underwent multiparametric MRI and prostatectomy in our institution in 2015–2018 were considered; a total of 949 patients were included. Gradient-boosted decision tree models were separately trained using clinical features alone and in combination with radiological reporting and/or prostate radiomic features to predict pathological T, pathological N, ISUP score, and their change from preclinical assessment. Model behavior was analyzed in terms of performance, feature importance, Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values, and mean absolute error (MAE). The best model was compared against a naïve model mimicking clinical workflow.
Results
The model including all variables was the best performing (AUC values ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 for the six endpoints). Radiomic features brought a small yet measurable boost in performance, with the SHAP values indicating that their contribution can be critical to successful prediction of endpoints for individual patients. MAEs were lower for low-risk patients, suggesting that the models find them easier to classify. The best model outperformed (
p
≤ 0.0001) clinical baseline, resulting in significantly fewer false negative predictions and overall was less prone to under-staging.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the potential benefit of integrative ML models for pathological status prediction in PCa. Additional studies regarding clinical integration of such models can provide valuable information for personalizing therapy offering a tool to improve non-invasive prediction of pathological status.
Clinical relevance statement
The best machine learning model was less prone to under-staging of the disease. The improved accuracy of our pathological prediction models could constitute an asset to the clinical workflow by providing clinicians with accurate pathological predictions prior to treatment.
Key Points
•
Currently, the most common strategies for pre-surgical stratification of prostate cancer (PCa) patients have shown to have suboptimal performances.
•
The addition of radiological features to the clinical features gave a considerable boost in model performance. Our best model outperforms the naïve model, avoiding under-staging and resulting in a critical advantage in the clinic.
•
Machine learning models incorporating clinical, radiological, and radiomics features significantly improved accuracy of pathological prediction in prostate cancer, possibly constituting an asset to the clinical workflow.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0938-7994</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-1084</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10699-3</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38507053</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Aged ; Decision Trees ; Diagnostic Radiology ; Error analysis ; Humans ; Imaging ; Internal Medicine ; Interventional Radiology ; Invasiveness ; Learning algorithms ; Machine Learning ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Neuroradiology ; Pathology ; Patients ; Performance prediction ; Prediction models ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prostate - diagnostic imaging ; Prostate - pathology ; Prostate cancer ; Prostatectomy ; Prostatectomy - methods ; Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery ; Radiology ; Radiomics ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk groups ; Ultrasound ; Urogenital ; Workflow</subject><ispartof>European radiology, 2024-10, Vol.34 (10), p.6241-6253</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology 2024. Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to European Society of Radiology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-a67e58ebce606b535440cc2b44f1689235c5f5da647bc136842cc6aae034db5e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7830-3149</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00330-024-10699-3$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00330-024-10699-3$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38507053$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Marvaso, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isaksson, Lars Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaffaroni, Mattia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vincini, Maria Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Paul Eugene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pepa, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corrao, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rotondi, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mastroleo, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raimondi, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alessi, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pricolo, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luzzago, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferro, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cattani, Federica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceci, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Musi, Gennaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Cobelli, Ottavio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cremonesi, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gandini, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>La Torre, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orecchia, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petralia, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</creatorcontrib><title>Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models</title><title>European radiology</title><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><description>Objective
To test the ability of high-performance machine learning (ML) models employing clinical, radiological, and radiomic variables to improve non-invasive prediction of the pathological status of prostate cancer (PCa) in a large, single-institution cohort.
Methods
Patients who underwent multiparametric MRI and prostatectomy in our institution in 2015–2018 were considered; a total of 949 patients were included. Gradient-boosted decision tree models were separately trained using clinical features alone and in combination with radiological reporting and/or prostate radiomic features to predict pathological T, pathological N, ISUP score, and their change from preclinical assessment. Model behavior was analyzed in terms of performance, feature importance, Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values, and mean absolute error (MAE). The best model was compared against a naïve model mimicking clinical workflow.
Results
The model including all variables was the best performing (AUC values ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 for the six endpoints). Radiomic features brought a small yet measurable boost in performance, with the SHAP values indicating that their contribution can be critical to successful prediction of endpoints for individual patients. MAEs were lower for low-risk patients, suggesting that the models find them easier to classify. The best model outperformed (
p
≤ 0.0001) clinical baseline, resulting in significantly fewer false negative predictions and overall was less prone to under-staging.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the potential benefit of integrative ML models for pathological status prediction in PCa. Additional studies regarding clinical integration of such models can provide valuable information for personalizing therapy offering a tool to improve non-invasive prediction of pathological status.
Clinical relevance statement
The best machine learning model was less prone to under-staging of the disease. The improved accuracy of our pathological prediction models could constitute an asset to the clinical workflow by providing clinicians with accurate pathological predictions prior to treatment.
Key Points
•
Currently, the most common strategies for pre-surgical stratification of prostate cancer (PCa) patients have shown to have suboptimal performances.
•
The addition of radiological features to the clinical features gave a considerable boost in model performance. Our best model outperforms the naïve model, avoiding under-staging and resulting in a critical advantage in the clinic.
•
Machine learning models incorporating clinical, radiological, and radiomics features significantly improved accuracy of pathological prediction in prostate cancer, possibly constituting an asset to the clinical workflow.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Decision Trees</subject><subject>Diagnostic Radiology</subject><subject>Error analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interventional Radiology</subject><subject>Invasiveness</subject><subject>Learning algorithms</subject><subject>Machine Learning</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Neuroradiology</subject><subject>Pathology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Performance prediction</subject><subject>Prediction models</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostate - pathology</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatectomy</subject><subject>Prostatectomy - methods</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Radiomics</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Risk groups</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Urogenital</subject><subject>Workflow</subject><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><issn>1432-1084</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kcuKFDEUhoMozjj6Ai4k4MZNae5VtRJpRh0YEURxGU4lp6oz1KVNUtP0w_iupu3xggshkBPy5Tsn_IQ85ewlZ6x-lRiTklVMqIoz07aVvEfOuZKiHBt1_6_6jDxK6YYx1nJVPyRnstGsZlqek-8bmOke6S6iDy7THeTtMi7Dge5DqdZM0xoHjIfX9CuGYRvmgeYtUvAePb2FcUW69HRaxxx2EGHCHIOjHz5dUZg93RfZUb6kDBlpBB-WKbhEw1xWxiFCDrdIJ3BFjXREiPOxx7R4HNNj8qCHMeGTu_2CfHl7-Xnzvrr--O5q8-a6clKYXIGpUTfYOTTMdFpqpZhzolOq56ZphdRO99qDUXXnuDSNEs4ZAGRS-U6jvCAvTt4y6bcVU7ZTSA7HEWZc1mRFW0vOuBCyoM__QW-WNc5lOlsQJWpeN6pQ4kS58vUUsbe7GCaIB8uZPYZnT-HZEp79GZ49qp_dqdduQv_7ya-0CiBPQCpXc0nlT-__aH8AtLinVA</recordid><startdate>202410</startdate><enddate>202410</enddate><creator>Marvaso, Giulia</creator><creator>Isaksson, Lars Johannes</creator><creator>Zaffaroni, Mattia</creator><creator>Vincini, Maria Giulia</creator><creator>Summers, Paul Eugene</creator><creator>Pepa, Matteo</creator><creator>Corrao, Giulia</creator><creator>Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo</creator><creator>Rotondi, Marco</creator><creator>Mastroleo, Federico</creator><creator>Raimondi, Sara</creator><creator>Alessi, Sarah</creator><creator>Pricolo, Paola</creator><creator>Luzzago, Stefano</creator><creator>Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro</creator><creator>Ferro, Matteo</creator><creator>Cattani, Federica</creator><creator>Ceci, Francesco</creator><creator>Musi, Gennaro</creator><creator>De Cobelli, Ottavio</creator><creator>Cremonesi, Marta</creator><creator>Gandini, Sara</creator><creator>La Torre, Davide</creator><creator>Orecchia, Roberto</creator><creator>Petralia, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7830-3149</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202410</creationdate><title>Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models</title><author>Marvaso, Giulia ; Isaksson, Lars Johannes ; Zaffaroni, Mattia ; Vincini, Maria Giulia ; Summers, Paul Eugene ; Pepa, Matteo ; Corrao, Giulia ; Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo ; Rotondi, Marco ; Mastroleo, Federico ; Raimondi, Sara ; Alessi, Sarah ; Pricolo, Paola ; Luzzago, Stefano ; Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro ; Ferro, Matteo ; Cattani, Federica ; Ceci, Francesco ; Musi, Gennaro ; De Cobelli, Ottavio ; Cremonesi, Marta ; Gandini, Sara ; La Torre, Davide ; Orecchia, Roberto ; Petralia, Giuseppe ; Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-a67e58ebce606b535440cc2b44f1689235c5f5da647bc136842cc6aae034db5e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Decision Trees</topic><topic>Diagnostic Radiology</topic><topic>Error analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interventional Radiology</topic><topic>Invasiveness</topic><topic>Learning algorithms</topic><topic>Machine Learning</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Neuroradiology</topic><topic>Pathology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Performance prediction</topic><topic>Prediction models</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prostate - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostate - pathology</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatectomy</topic><topic>Prostatectomy - methods</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Radiomics</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Risk groups</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Urogenital</topic><topic>Workflow</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Marvaso, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Isaksson, Lars Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zaffaroni, Mattia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vincini, Maria Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Summers, Paul Eugene</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pepa, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corrao, Giulia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rotondi, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mastroleo, Federico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raimondi, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alessi, Sarah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pricolo, Paola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luzzago, Stefano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferro, Matteo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cattani, Federica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ceci, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Musi, Gennaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Cobelli, Ottavio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cremonesi, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gandini, Sara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>La Torre, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Orecchia, Roberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Petralia, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Marvaso, Giulia</au><au>Isaksson, Lars Johannes</au><au>Zaffaroni, Mattia</au><au>Vincini, Maria Giulia</au><au>Summers, Paul Eugene</au><au>Pepa, Matteo</au><au>Corrao, Giulia</au><au>Mazzola, Giovanni Carlo</au><au>Rotondi, Marco</au><au>Mastroleo, Federico</au><au>Raimondi, Sara</au><au>Alessi, Sarah</au><au>Pricolo, Paola</au><au>Luzzago, Stefano</au><au>Mistretta, Francesco Alessandro</au><au>Ferro, Matteo</au><au>Cattani, Federica</au><au>Ceci, Francesco</au><au>Musi, Gennaro</au><au>De Cobelli, Ottavio</au><au>Cremonesi, Marta</au><au>Gandini, Sara</au><au>La Torre, Davide</au><au>Orecchia, Roberto</au><au>Petralia, Giuseppe</au><au>Jereczek-Fossa, Barbara Alicja</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models</atitle><jtitle>European radiology</jtitle><stitle>Eur Radiol</stitle><addtitle>Eur Radiol</addtitle><date>2024-10</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>6241</spage><epage>6253</epage><pages>6241-6253</pages><issn>1432-1084</issn><issn>0938-7994</issn><eissn>1432-1084</eissn><abstract>Objective
To test the ability of high-performance machine learning (ML) models employing clinical, radiological, and radiomic variables to improve non-invasive prediction of the pathological status of prostate cancer (PCa) in a large, single-institution cohort.
Methods
Patients who underwent multiparametric MRI and prostatectomy in our institution in 2015–2018 were considered; a total of 949 patients were included. Gradient-boosted decision tree models were separately trained using clinical features alone and in combination with radiological reporting and/or prostate radiomic features to predict pathological T, pathological N, ISUP score, and their change from preclinical assessment. Model behavior was analyzed in terms of performance, feature importance, Shapley additive explanation (SHAP) values, and mean absolute error (MAE). The best model was compared against a naïve model mimicking clinical workflow.
Results
The model including all variables was the best performing (AUC values ranging from 0.73 to 0.96 for the six endpoints). Radiomic features brought a small yet measurable boost in performance, with the SHAP values indicating that their contribution can be critical to successful prediction of endpoints for individual patients. MAEs were lower for low-risk patients, suggesting that the models find them easier to classify. The best model outperformed (
p
≤ 0.0001) clinical baseline, resulting in significantly fewer false negative predictions and overall was less prone to under-staging.
Conclusions
Our results highlight the potential benefit of integrative ML models for pathological status prediction in PCa. Additional studies regarding clinical integration of such models can provide valuable information for personalizing therapy offering a tool to improve non-invasive prediction of pathological status.
Clinical relevance statement
The best machine learning model was less prone to under-staging of the disease. The improved accuracy of our pathological prediction models could constitute an asset to the clinical workflow by providing clinicians with accurate pathological predictions prior to treatment.
Key Points
•
Currently, the most common strategies for pre-surgical stratification of prostate cancer (PCa) patients have shown to have suboptimal performances.
•
The addition of radiological features to the clinical features gave a considerable boost in model performance. Our best model outperforms the naïve model, avoiding under-staging and resulting in a critical advantage in the clinic.
•
Machine learning models incorporating clinical, radiological, and radiomics features significantly improved accuracy of pathological prediction in prostate cancer, possibly constituting an asset to the clinical workflow.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>38507053</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00330-024-10699-3</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7830-3149</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1432-1084 |
ispartof | European radiology, 2024-10, Vol.34 (10), p.6241-6253 |
issn | 1432-1084 0938-7994 1432-1084 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2973101223 |
source | MEDLINE; Springer Online Journals Complete |
subjects | Accuracy Aged Decision Trees Diagnostic Radiology Error analysis Humans Imaging Internal Medicine Interventional Radiology Invasiveness Learning algorithms Machine Learning Magnetic resonance imaging Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Neuroradiology Pathology Patients Performance prediction Prediction models Predictive Value of Tests Prostate - diagnostic imaging Prostate - pathology Prostate cancer Prostatectomy Prostatectomy - methods Prostatic Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery Radiology Radiomics Retrospective Studies Risk groups Ultrasound Urogenital Workflow |
title | Can we predict pathology without surgery? Weighing the added value of multiparametric MRI and whole prostate radiomics in integrative machine learning models |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T21%3A30%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20we%20predict%20pathology%20without%20surgery?%20Weighing%20the%20added%20value%20of%20multiparametric%20MRI%20and%20whole%20prostate%20radiomics%20in%20integrative%20machine%20learning%20models&rft.jtitle=European%20radiology&rft.au=Marvaso,%20Giulia&rft.date=2024-10&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=6241&rft.epage=6253&rft.pages=6241-6253&rft.issn=1432-1084&rft.eissn=1432-1084&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00330-024-10699-3&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2973101223%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3104271784&rft_id=info:pmid/38507053&rfr_iscdi=true |