Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38670874›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2024

Automated Detection and Grading of Extraprostatic Extension of Prostate Cancer at MRI via Cascaded Deep Learning and Random Forest Classification.

Benjamin D Simon, Katie M Merriman, Stephanie A Harmon, Jesse Tetreault, Enis C Yilmaz, Zoë Blake, Maria J Merino, Julie Y An, Jamie Marko, Yan Mee Law and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Benjamin D SimonMolecular Imaging Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.D.S., K.M.M., S.A.H., E.C.Y., P.L.C., B.T.); Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Department Engineering Science, University of Oxford, UK (B.D.S.).
Katie M MerrimanMolecular Imaging Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.D.S., K.M.M., S.A.H., E.C.Y., P.L.C., B.T.).
Stephanie A HarmonMolecular Imaging Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.D.S., K.M.M., S.A.H., E.C.Y., P.L.C., B.T.).
Jesse TetreaultNVIDIA Corporation, Santa Clara, California, USA (J.T.).
Enis C YilmazMolecular Imaging Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.D.S., K.M.M., S.A.H., E.C.Y., P.L.C., B.T.).
Zoë BlakeUrology Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (Z.B., S.G., P.A.P.).
Maria J MerinoLaboratory of Pathology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (M.J.M.).
Julie Y AnDepartment of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, California, USA (J.Y.A.).
Jamie MarkoDepartment of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA (J.M.).
Yan Mee LawDepartment of Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore (Y.M.L.).
Sandeep GurramUrology Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (Z.B., S.G., P.A.P.).
Bradford J WoodCenter for Interventional Oncology, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Clinical Center, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.J.W.).
Peter L ChoykeMolecular Imaging Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.D.S., K.M.M., S.A.H., E.C.Y., P.L.C., B.T.).
Peter A PintoUrology Oncology Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (Z.B., S.G., P.A.P.).
Baris TurkbeyMolecular Imaging Branch, NCI, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (B.D.S., K.M.M., S.A.H., E.C.Y., P.L.C., B.T.). Electronic address: turkbeyi@mail.nih.gov.
Center for Cancer Research · USJohns Hopkins University · USNational Institutes of Health · USNvidia (United States) · USSingapore General Hospital · SGUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Prostate Cancer ImagingZIABC010655 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI CHOYKE, PETER L · 2009 to 2025
$49.2M
Center for Interventional OncologyZIDBC011242 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2009 to 2025
$18.7M
Prostate SectionZIABC011081 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI PINTO, PETER · 2009 to 2025
$15.2M
Translational Surgical PathologyZIESC000853 · NCI · DIVISION OF CLINICAL SCIENCES - NCI · PI MERINO, MARIA · 2009 to 2025
$4.3M
Imaging, image guided biopsy and treatment of prostate cancerZIABC012062 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI TÜRKBEY, BARIS · 2021 to 2025
$1.3M
Development of COVID-19 Imaging Tools with Artificial IntelligenceZIABC011936 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI WOOD, BRADFORD J · 2020 to 2025
$1.2M
Interventional OncologyZIACL040015 · CLC · CLINICAL CENTER · PI WOOD, BRADFORD · 2009 to 2025
$0k
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA BC012062
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesExtraprostatic extension (EPE) is well established as a significant predictor of prostate cancer aggression and recurrence. Accurate EPE assessment prior to radical prostatectomy can impact surgical approach. We aimed to utilize a deep learning-based AI workflow for automated EPE grading from prostate T2W MRI, ADC map, and High B DWI. MATERIAL AND

methodsAn expert genitourinary radiologist conducted prospective clinical assessments of MRI scans for 634 patients and assigned risk for EPE using a grading technique. The training set and held-out independent test set consisted of 507 patients and 127 patients, respectively. Existing deep-learning AI models for prostate organ and lesion segmentation were leveraged to extract area and distance features for random forest classification models. Model performance was evaluated using balanced accuracy, ROC AUCs for each EPE grade, as well as sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy compared to EPE on histopathology.

resultsA balanced accuracy score of .390 ± 0.078 was achieved using a lesion detection probability threshold of 0.45 and distance features. Using the test set, ROC AUCs for AI-assigned EPE grades 0-3 were 0.70, 0.65, 0.68, and 0.55 respectively. When using EPE≥ 1 as the threshold for positive EPE, the model achieved a sensitivity of 0.67, specificity of 0.73, and accuracy of 0.72 compared to radiologist sensitivity of 0.81, specificity of 0.62, and accuracy of 0.66 using histopathology as the ground truth.

conclusionOur AI workflow for assigning imaging-based EPE grades achieves an accuracy for predicting histologic EPE approaching that of physicians. This automated workflow has the potential to enhance physician decision-making for assessing the risk of EPE in patients undergoing treatment for prostate cancer due to its consistency and automation.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm GradingProstatic NeoplasmsSensitivity and SpecificityAgedHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesProstatectomyRandom ForestDeep LearningExtraprostatic ExtensionMRIProstate Cancer

Identifiers

PMID38670874
PMCPMC11490411
OpenAlexW4395446013

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.