Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33709532›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2021

Performance of Deep Learning and Genitourinary Radiologists in Detection of Prostate Cancer Using 3-T Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Ruiming Cao, Xinran Zhong, Sohrab Afshari, Ely Felker, Voraparee Suvannarerg, Teeravut Tubtawee, Sitaram Vangala, Fabien Scalzo, Steven Raman, Kyunghyun Sung

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. AI in Prostate MRI: A Task-Based Review.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruiming CaoDepartment of Bioengineering, UC Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0936-114X
Xinran ZhongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, UT Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Sohrab AfshariDepartment of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2716-5086
Ely FelkerDepartment of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Voraparee SuvannarergDepartment of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Teeravut TubtaweeDepartment of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Sitaram VangalaDepartment of Medicine Statistics Core, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Fabien ScalzoDepartment of Neurology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Steven RamanDepartment of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Kyunghyun SungDepartment of Radiology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4175-5322
Berkeley College · USPrince of Songkla University · THSiriraj Hospital · THSouthwestern Medical Center · USUCLA Health · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

Women's CancersP30CA016042 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Samuel Wheeler French · 1985 to 2026
$134.5M
Integrating Quantitative MRI and Artificial Intelligence to Improve Prostate Cancer ClassificationR01CA248506 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI SUNG, KYUNG HYUN, WU, HOLDEN H · 2020 to 2024
$3.0M
Integrated Diagnostics Program, Department of Radiological Sciences and Pathology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLANCI NIH HHS P30 CA016042NCI NIH HHS R01 CA248506NCI NIH HHS R01-CA248506
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeveral deep learning-based techniques have been developed for prostate cancer (PCa) detection using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), but few of them have been rigorously evaluated relative to radiologists' performance or whole-mount histopathology (WMHP). PURPOSE: To compare the performance of a previously proposed deep learning algorithm, FocalNet, and expert radiologists in the detection of PCa on mpMRI with WMHP as the reference. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective, single-center study. SUBJECTS: A total of 553 patients (development cohort: 427 patients; evaluation cohort: 126 patients) who underwent 3-T mpMRI prior to radical prostatectomy from October 2010 to February 2018. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3-T, T2-weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging. ASSESSMENT: FocalNet was trained on the development cohort to predict PCa locations by detection points, with a confidence value for each point, on the evaluation cohort. Four fellowship-trained genitourinary (GU) radiologists independently evaluated the evaluation cohort to detect suspicious PCa foci, annotate detection point locations, and assign a five-point suspicion score (1: least suspicious, 5: most suspicious) for each annotated detection point. The PCa detection performance of FocalNet and radiologists were evaluated by the lesion detection sensitivity vs. the number of false-positive detections at different thresholds on suspicion scores. Clinically significant lesions: Gleason Group (GG) ≥ 2 or pathological size ≥ 10 mm. Index lesions: the highest GG and the largest pathological size (secondary). STATISTICAL TESTS: Bootstrap hypothesis test for the detection sensitivity between radiologists and FocalNet.

resultsFor the overall differential detection sensitivity, FocalNet was 5.1% and 4.7% below the radiologists for clinically significant and index lesions, respectively; however, the differences were not statistically significant (P = 0.413 and P = 0.282, respectively). DATA

conclusionFocalNet achieved slightly lower but not statistically significant PCa detection performance compared with GU radiologists. Compared with radiologists, FocalNet demonstrated similar detection performance for a highly sensitive setting (suspicion score ≥ 1) or a highly specific setting (suspicion score = 5), while lower performance in between. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleRadiologistsRetrospective Studiesautomatic cancer detectiondeep learningmultiparametric MRIprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID33709532
PMCPMC8812258
OpenAlexW3133779538

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.