Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 9, 2025
A Cognitive Fusion-guided Prostate Biopsy Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Transrectal Ultrasound
Published on: March 21, 2025
Deep-Learning Models for Detection and Localization of Visible Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on
Zhaonan Sun1, Pengsheng Wu2, Yingpu Cui3,4
1Department of Radiology, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.
Background:
Deep learning for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is feasible but needs further evaluation in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 4-10 ng/mL.
Purpose:
To explore diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), alone and in combination with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), for deep-learning-based models to detect and localize visible csPCa.
Study Type:
Retrospective.
Population:
One thousand six hundred twenty-eight patients with systematic and cognitive-targeted biopsy-confirmation (1007 csPCa, 621 non-csPCa) were divided into model development (N = 1428) and hold-out test (N = 200) datasets.
Field Strength/Sequence:
DWI with diffusion-weighted single-shot gradient echo planar imaging sequence and T2WI with T2-weighted fast spin echo sequence at 3.0-T and 1.5-T.
Assessment:
The ground truth of csPCa was annotated by two radiologists in consensus. A diffusion model, DWI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) as input, and a biparametric model (DWI, ADC, and T2WI as input) were trained based on U-Net. Three radiologists provided the PI-RADS (version 2.1) assessment. The performances were determined at the lesion, location, and the patient level.
Statistical Tests:
The performance was evaluated using the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
The lesion-level sensitivities of the diffusion model, the biparametric model, and the PI-RADS assessment were 89.0%, 85.3%, and 90.8% (P = 0.289-0.754). At the patient level, the diffusion model had significantly higher sensitivity than the biparametric model (96.0% vs. 90.0%), while there was no significant difference in specificity (77.0%. vs. 85.0%, P = 0.096). For location analysis, there were no significant differences in AUCs between the models (sextant-level, 0.895 vs. 0.893, P = 0.777; zone-level, 0.931 vs. 0.917, P = 0.282), and both models had significantly higher AUCs than the PI-RADS assessment (sextant-level, 0.734; zone-level, 0.863).
Data Conclusion:
The diffusion model achieved the best performance in detecting and localizing csPCa in patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/mL.
Evidence Level:
3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.
