Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32591889›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Using decision curve analysis to benchmark performance of a magnetic resonance imaging-based deep learning model for prostate cancer risk assessment.

Dominik Deniffel, Nabila Abraham, Khashayar Namdar, Xin Dong, Emmanuel Salinas, Laurent Milot, Farzad Khalvati, Masoom A Haider

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Dominik DeniffelLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Nabila AbrahamLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Khashayar NamdarLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Xin DongLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Emmanuel SalinasLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Laurent MilotBody and VIR Radiology Department, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France.
Farzad KhalvatiLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Masoom A HaiderLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, ON, Canada. mahaider@radfiler.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7165-8315
Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute · CAUniversity Health Network · CAHospices Civils de Lyon · FRSunnybrook Health Science Centre · CA

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Fellowship [DE 3207/1-1]
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo benchmark the performance of a calibrated 3D convolutional neural network (CNN) applied to multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) for risk assessment of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) using decision curve analysis (DCA).

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 499 patients who had positive mpMRI (PI-RADSv2 ≥ 3) and MRI-targeted biopsy. The training cohort comprised 449 men, including a calibration set of 50 men. Biopsy decision strategies included using risk estimates from the CNN (original and calibrated), to perform biopsy in men with PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 only, or additionally in men with PI-RADSv2 3 and PSA density (PSAd) ≥ 0.15 ng/ml/ml. Discrimination, calibration and clinical usefulness in the unseen test cohort (n = 50) were assessed using C-statistic, calibration plots and DCA, respectively.

resultsThe calibrated CNN achieved moderate calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow calibration test, p = 0.41) and good discrimination (C = 0.85). DCA revealed consistently higher net benefit and net reduction in biopsies for the calibrated CNN compared with the original CNN, PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 and the combined strategy of PI-RADSv2 and PSAd. Original CNN predictions were severely miscalibrated (p < 0.0001) resulting in net harm compared with a 'biopsy all' patients strategy. At-risk thresholds ≥ 10% using the calibrated CNN and the combined strategy reduced the number of biopsies by an estimated 201 and 55 men, respectively, per 1000 men at risk, without missing csPCa, while original CNN and PI-RADSv2 ≥ 4 could not achieve a net reduction in biopsies.

conclusionsDCA revealed that our calibrated 3D-CNN resulted in fewer unnecessary biopsies compared with using PI-RADSv2 alone or in combination with PSAd. CNN calibration is important in achieving clinical utility. KEY POINTS: • A 3D deep learning model applied to multiparametric MRI may help to prevent unnecessary prostate biopsies in patients eligible for MRI-targeted biopsy. • Owing to miscalibration, original risk estimates by the deep learning model require prior calibration to enable clinical utility. • Decision curve analysis confirmed a net benefit of using our calibrated deep learning model for biopsy decisions compared with alternative strategies, including PI-RADSv2 alone and in combination with prostate-specific antigen density.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingAlgorithmsBenchmarkingBiopsyCalibrationHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedMachine LearningMaleNormal DistributionObserver VariationProstate-Specific AntigenProstatic NeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentProstate-Specific AntigenArtificial intelligenceDecision analysisDeep LearningMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID32591889
OpenAlexW3037389001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.