Predicting clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions using MRI-based radiomics: a literature review of methodological variations and performance

被引:0
作者
Serrano, Alejandro [1 ]
Louviere, Christopher [1 ]
Singh, Anmol [1 ]
Ozdemir, Savas [1 ]
Hernandez, Mauricio [1 ]
Balaji, K. C. [2 ]
Gopireddy, Dheeraj R. [1 ]
Gumus, Kazim Z. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Florida, Coll Med, Dept Radiol, Jacksonville, FL 32209 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Coll Med, Dept Urol, Jacksonville, FL USA
关键词
Prostate cancer; Multiparametric MRI; PI-RADS; 3; Radiomics; Radiomics quality score;
D O I
10.1007/s00261-025-04914-y
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the current state of MRI-based radiomics for predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) in PI-RADS 3 lesions and assess the quality of these radiomic studies via a systematic review of the published literature. Methods We conducted a literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases from January 2017 to September 2024, using search terms containing variations of PI-RADS-3 and radiomics in abstract and titles. We collected details from the radiomic workflow for each study, including statistical performance of the radiomics models (area under the curve (AUC)). We calculated the pooled AUC across the studies and a radiomics quality score (RQS) to evaluate the quality of radiomics methodology. Results Of 52 articles retrieved, 14 met the selection criteria. Of these, 12 studies employed 3T MRI scanners, 8 studies T2WI, DWI, ADC images for feature extraction, and 13 studies performed manual segmentation. All but two studies used the PyRadiomics platform as their feature extraction tool. The most commonly used radiomic selection methods were Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO). The total number of features extracted ranged between 107 and 2553. The median number of radiomics features selected for use in models was 10. Nine studies (9/14) explored clinical variables in their radiomics models, with the most common being age and PSA. For building the final model, Logistic Regression, and Univariate and Multivariate modeling methods were featured across eight studies (8/14). Overall performance of the models by pooled AUC was 0.823 (95% CI, 0.72, 0.92). The mean RQS score was 15/36 (range 13-19). Conclusion MRI-based radiomic models have potential in predicting csPCa in PI-RADS-3 lesions. However, using RQS as a guide, we determined there is a clear need to improve the methodological quality of existing and future studies by focusing on extensive validation and open publishing of data for reproducibility.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effects of the lesion size on clinically significant prostate cancer detection rates in PI-RADS category 3--5 lesions
    Ayranci, A.
    Caglar, U.
    Meric, A.
    Gelmis, M.
    Sarilar, O.
    Ozgor, F.
    ACTAS UROLOGICAS ESPANOLAS, 2024, 48 (07): : 526 - 531
  • [22] The diagnostic performance in clinically significant prostate cancer with PI-RADS version 2.1: simplified bpMRI versus standard mpMRI
    Jihui Song
    Chenglin Zhao
    Fei Zhang
    Yingdi Yuan
    Lee M. Wang
    Vivek Sah
    Jun Zhang
    Wencai Weng
    Zhenghan Yang
    Zhenchang Wang
    Liang Wang
    Abdominal Radiology, 2023, 48 : 704 - 712
  • [23] The Role of Radiomics in the Prediction of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in the PI-RADS v2 and v2.1 Era: A Systematic Review
    Antolin, Andreu
    Roson, Nuria
    Mast, Richard
    Arce, Javier
    Almodovar, Ramon
    Cortada, Roger
    Maceda, Almudena
    Escobar, Manuel
    Trilla, Enrique
    Morote, Juan
    CANCERS, 2024, 16 (17)
  • [24] Impact of enema prep on the false-negative rate of a PI-RADS 1 MRI of the prostate for clinically significant prostate cancer
    H. Patel
    F. Ahmed
    L. Luk
    B. Navot
    H. Shaish
    Abdominal Radiology, 2022, 47 : 2494 - 2499
  • [25] Impact of enema prep on the false-negative rate of a PI-RADS 1 MRI of the prostate for clinically significant prostate cancer
    Patel, H.
    Ahmed, F.
    Luk, L.
    Navot, B.
    Shaish, H.
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (07) : 2494 - 2499
  • [26] Assessment of PI-RADS v2 categories ≥ 3 for diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer
    Nayana U. Patel
    Kimberly E. Lind
    Kavita Garg
    David Crawford
    Priya N. Werahera
    Sajal S. Pokharel
    Abdominal Radiology, 2019, 44 : 705 - 712
  • [27] Optimal PSA density threshold and predictive factors for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer in patient with a PI-RADS 3 lesion on MRI
    Nguyen, Truong-An
    Fourcade, Alexandre
    Zambon, Audrey
    Saout, Kevin
    Deruelle, Charles
    Joulin, Vincent
    Tissot, Valentin
    Doucet, Laurent
    Rozet, Francois
    Fournier, Georges
    Valeri, Antoine
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2023, 41 (08) : 354e11 - 354e18
  • [28] Deep learning model for the detection of prostate cancer and classification of clinically significant disease using multiparametric MRI in comparison to PI-RADs score
    Yang, Chunguang
    Li, Basen
    Luan, Yang
    Wang, Shiwei
    Bian, Yang
    Zhang, Junbiao
    Wang, Zefeng
    Liu, Bo
    Chen, Xin
    Hacker, Marcus
    Li, Zhen
    Li, Xiang
    Wang, Zhihua
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2024, 42 (05) : 158.e17 - 158.e27
  • [29] Transverse prostate maximum sectional area can predict clinically significant prostate cancer in PI-RADS 3 lesions at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging
    Gaudiano, Caterina
    Braccischi, Lorenzo
    Taninokuchi Tomassoni, Makoto
    Paccapelo, Alexandro
    Bianchi, Lorenzo
    Corcioni, Beniamino
    Ciccarese, Federica
    Schiavina, Riccardo
    Droghetti, Matteo
    Giunchi, Francesca
    Fiorentino, Michelangelo
    Brunocilla, Eugenio
    Golfieri, Rita
    FRONTIERS IN ONCOLOGY, 2023, 13
  • [30] PI-RADS 3 lesions: Does the association of the lesion volume with the prostate-specific antigen density matter in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer?
    Rico, Luis
    Blas, Leandro
    Vitagliano, Gonzalo
    Contreras, Pablo
    Pita, Hernando Rios
    Ameri, Carlos
    UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY-SEMINARS AND ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2021, 39 (07) : 431.e9 - 431.e13