Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37943772›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Optimization and validation of 18F-DCFPyL PET radiomics-based machine learning models in intermediate- to high-risk primary prostate cancer.

Wietske I Luining, Daniela E Oprea-Lager, André N Vis, Reindert J A van Moorselaar, Remco J J Knol, Maurits Wondergem, Ronald Boellaard, Matthijs C F Cysouw

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.8field-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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Robust [Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Update on PSMA-based Prostate Cancer Imaging.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2024
    Review
  9. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Wietske I LuiningDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4590-6589
Daniela E Oprea-LagerDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
André N VisDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Reindert J A van MoorselaarDepartment of Urology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Prostate Cancer Network Netherlands, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Remco J J KnolDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Maurits WondergemDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Northwest Clinics, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.
Ronald BoellaardDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Matthijs C F CysouwDepartment of Radiology & Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLNorthwest Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRadiomics extracted from prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-PET modeled with machine learning (ML) may be used for prediction of disease risk. However, validation of previously proposed approaches is lacking. We aimed to optimize and validate ML models based on 18F-DCFPyL-PET radiomics for the prediction of lymph-node involvement (LNI), extracapsular extension (ECE), and postoperative Gleason score (GS) in primary prostate cancer (PCa) patients.

methodsPatients with intermediate- to high-risk PCa who underwent 18F-DCFPyL-PET/CT before radical prostatectomy with pelvic lymph-node dissection were evaluated. The training dataset included 72 patients, the internal validation dataset 24 patients, and the external validation dataset 27 patients. PSMA-avid intra-prostatic lesions were delineated semi-automatically on PET and 480 radiomics features were extracted. Conventional PET-metrics were derived for comparative analysis. Segmentation, preprocessing, and ML methods were optimized in repeated 5-fold cross-validation (CV) on the training dataset. The trained models were tested on the combined validation dataset. Combat harmonization was applied to external radiomics data. Model performance was assessed using the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC).

resultsThe CV-AUCs in the training dataset were 0.88, 0.79 and 0.84 for LNI, ECE, and GS, respectively. In the combined validation dataset, the ML models could significantly predict GS with an AUC of 0.78 (p<0.05). However, validation AUCs for LNI and ECE prediction were not significant (0.57 and 0.63, respectively). Conventional PET metrics-based models had comparable AUCs for LNI (0.59, p>0.05) and ECE (0.66, p>0.05), but a lower AUC for GS (0.73, p<0.05). In general, Combat harmonization improved external validation AUCs (-0.03 to +0.18).

conclusionIn internal and external validation, 18F-DCFPyL-PET radiomics-based ML models predicted high postoperative GS but not LNI or ECE in intermediate- to high-risk PCa. Therefore, the clinical benefit seems to be limited. These results underline the need for external and/or multicenter validation of PET radiomics-based ML model analyses to assess their generalizability.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsHumansLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMalePositron Emission Tomography Computed TomographyProstateRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37943772
PMCPMC10635444
OpenAlexW4388522150

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.