Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37507610›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Application of a validated prostate MRI deep learning system to independent same-vendor multi-institutional data: demonstration of transferability.

Nils Netzer, Carolin Eith, Oliver Bethge, Thomas Hielscher, Constantin Schwab, Albrecht Stenzinger, Regula Gnirs, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer, Klaus H Maier-Hein, Lars Schimmöller and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Nils NetzerDivision of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5805-0535
Carolin EithDivision of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Oliver BethgeMedical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
Thomas HielscherDivision of Biostatistics, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Constantin SchwabInstitute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Albrecht StenzingerInstitute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg Medical Center, Heidelberg, Germany.
Regula GnirsDivision of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz-Peter SchlemmerDivision of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Klaus H Maier-HeinNational Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT) Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Lars SchimmöllerMedical Faculty, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Dusseldorf, D-40225, Dusseldorf, Germany.
David BonekampDivision of Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Im Neuenheimer Feld 280, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. d.bonekamp@dkfz-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4811-0087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate a fully automatic deep learning system to detect and segment clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on same-vendor prostate MRI from two different institutions not contributing to training of the system. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective study, a previously bi-institutionally validated deep learning system (UNETM) was applied to bi-parametric prostate MRI data from one external institution (A), a PI-RADS distribution-matched internal cohort (B), and a csPCa stratified subset of single-institution external public challenge data (C). csPCa was defined as ISUP Grade Group ≥ 2 determined from combined targeted and extended systematic MRI/transrectal US-fusion biopsy. Performance of UNETM was evaluated by comparing ROC AUC and specificity at typical PI-RADS sensitivity levels. Lesion-level analysis between UNETM segmentations and radiologist-delineated segmentations was performed using Dice coefficient, free-response operating characteristic (FROC), and weighted alternative (waFROC). The influence of using different diffusion sequences was analyzed in cohort A.

resultsIn 250/250/140 exams in cohorts A/B/C, differences in ROC AUC were insignificant with 0.80 (95% CI: 0.74-0.85)/0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92)/0.82 (95% CI: 0.75-0.89). At sensitivities of 95% and 90%, UNETM achieved specificity of 30%/50% in A, 44%/71% in B, and 43%/49% in C, respectively. Dice coefficient of UNETM and radiologist-delineated lesions was 0.36 in A and 0.49 in B. The waFROC AUC was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.60-0.83) in A and 0.7 (95% CI: 0.64-0.78) in B. UNETM performed marginally better on readout-segmented than on single-shot echo-planar-imaging.

conclusionFor same-vendor examinations, deep learning provided comparable discrimination of csPCa and non-csPCa lesions and examinations between local and two independent external data sets, demonstrating the applicability of the system to institutions not participating in model training. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: A previously bi-institutionally validated fully automatic deep learning system maintained acceptable exam-level diagnostic performance in two independent external data sets, indicating the potential of deploying AI models without retraining or fine-tuning, and corroborating evidence that AI models extract a substantial amount of transferable domain knowledge about MRI-based prostate cancer assessment. KEY POINTS: • A previously bi-institutionally validated fully automatic deep learning system maintained acceptable exam-level diagnostic performance in two independent external data sets. • Lesion detection performance and segmentation congruence was similar on the institutional and an external data set, as measured by the weighted alternative FROC AUC and Dice coefficient. • Although the system generalized to two external institutions without re-training, achieving expected sensitivity and specificity levels using the deep learning system requires probability thresholds to be adjusted, underlining the importance of institution-specific calibration and quality control.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProstatic NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleProstateRetrospective StudiesDeep learningMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasmsValidation study

Identifiers

PMID37507610
PMCPMC10598076

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.