TY - JOUR
T1 - Multicenter Multireader Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Attention Mapping System for the Detection of Prostate Cancer with Multiparametric MRI
AU - Mehralivand, Sherif
AU - Harmon, Stephanie A.
AU - Shih, Joanna H.
AU - Smith, Clayton P.
AU - Lay, Nathan
AU - Argun, Burak
AU - Bednarova, Sandra
AU - Baroni, Ronaldo Hueb
AU - Canda, Abdullah Erdem
AU - Ercan, Karabekir
AU - Girometti, Rossano
AU - Karaarslan, Ercan
AU - Kural, Ali Riza
AU - Pursyko, Andrei S.
AU - Rais-Bahrami, Soroush
AU - Tonso, Victor Martins
AU - Magi-Galluzzi, Cristina
AU - Gordetsky, Jennifer B.
AU - MacArenco, Ricardo Silvestre E.Silva
AU - Merino, Maria J.
AU - Gumuskaya, Berrak
AU - Saglican, Yesim
AU - Sioletic, Stefano
AU - Warren, Anne Y.
AU - Barrett, Tristan
AU - Bittencourt, Leonardo
AU - Coskun, Mehmet
AU - Knauss, Chris
AU - Law, Yan Mee
AU - Malayeri, Ashkan A.
AU - Margolis, Daniel J.
AU - Marko, Jamie
AU - Yakar, Derya
AU - Wood, Bradford J.
AU - Pinto, Peter A.
AU - Choyke, Peter L.
AU - Summers, Ronald M.
AU - Turkbey, Baris
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported in whole or in part by federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (contract HHSN261200800001E).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 American Roentgen Ray Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in a multicenter dataset the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) detection system with attention mapping compared with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) interpretation in the detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. M RI examinations f rom five i nstitutions were i ncluded in this study and were evaluated by nine readers. In the first round, readers evaluated mpMRI studies using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. After 4 weeks, images were again presented to readers along with the AI-based detection system output. Readers accepted or rejected lesions within four AI-generated attention map boxes. Additional lesions outside of boxes were excluded from detection and categorization. The performances of readers using the mpMRI-only and AI-assisted approaches were compared. RESULTS. The study population included 152 case patients and 84 control patients with 274 pathologically proven cancer lesions. The lesion-based AUC was 74.9% for MRI and 77.5% for AI with no significant difference (p = 0.095). The sensitivity for overall detection of cancer lesions was higher for AI than for mpMRI but did not reach statistical significance (57.4% vs 53.6%, p = 0.073). However, for transition zone lesions, sensitivity was higher for AI than for MRI (61.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.001). Reading time was longer for AI than for MRI (4.66 vs 4.03 minutes, p < 0.001). There was moderate interreader agreement for AI and MRI with no significant difference (58.7% vs 58.5%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSION. Overall sensitivity was only minimally improved by use of the AI system. Significant improvement was achieved, however, in the detection of transition zone lesions with use of the AI system at the cost of a mean of 40 seconds of additional reading time.
AB - OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in a multicenter dataset the performance of an artificial intelligence (AI) detection system with attention mapping compared with multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) interpretation in the detection of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS. M RI examinations f rom five i nstitutions were i ncluded in this study and were evaluated by nine readers. In the first round, readers evaluated mpMRI studies using the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2. After 4 weeks, images were again presented to readers along with the AI-based detection system output. Readers accepted or rejected lesions within four AI-generated attention map boxes. Additional lesions outside of boxes were excluded from detection and categorization. The performances of readers using the mpMRI-only and AI-assisted approaches were compared. RESULTS. The study population included 152 case patients and 84 control patients with 274 pathologically proven cancer lesions. The lesion-based AUC was 74.9% for MRI and 77.5% for AI with no significant difference (p = 0.095). The sensitivity for overall detection of cancer lesions was higher for AI than for mpMRI but did not reach statistical significance (57.4% vs 53.6%, p = 0.073). However, for transition zone lesions, sensitivity was higher for AI than for MRI (61.8% vs 50.8%, p = 0.001). Reading time was longer for AI than for MRI (4.66 vs 4.03 minutes, p < 0.001). There was moderate interreader agreement for AI and MRI with no significant difference (58.7% vs 58.5%, p = 0.966). CONCLUSION. Overall sensitivity was only minimally improved by use of the AI system. Significant improvement was achieved, however, in the detection of transition zone lesions with use of the AI system at the cost of a mean of 40 seconds of additional reading time.
KW - Artificial intelligence
KW - Laparoscopic
KW - Mri
KW - Multiparametric
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Radical prostatectomy
KW - Robot-assisted
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091566738&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091566738&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2214/AJR.19.22573
DO - 10.2214/AJR.19.22573
M3 - Article
C2 - 32755355
AN - SCOPUS:85091566738
SN - 0361-803X
VL - 215
SP - 903
EP - 912
JO - The American journal of roentgenology and radium therapy
JF - The American journal of roentgenology and radium therapy
IS - 4
ER -