Related Experiment Video For Artificial intelligence
Updated: Jul 5, 2025
Machine Learning Algorithms for Early Detection of Bone Metastases in an Experimental Rat Model
Published on: August 16, 2020
Deep Learning-Based Detection and Classification of Bone Lesions on Staging Computed Tomography in Prostate Cancer: A
Mason J Belue1, Stephanie A Harmon1, Dong Yang2
1Molecular Imaging Branch, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr., MSC 1182, Building 10, Room B3B85, Bethesda, Maryland, USA (M.J.B., S.A.H., N.S.L., E.C.Y., T.E.P., B.S., L.L., E.M., P.L.C., B.T.).
Rationale And Objectives:
Efficiently detecting and characterizing metastatic bone lesions on staging CT is crucial for prostate cancer (PCa) care. However, it demands significant expert time and additional imaging such as PET/CT. We aimed to develop an ensemble of two automated deep learning AI models for 1) bone lesion detection and segmentation and 2) benign vs. metastatic lesion classification on staging CTs and to compare its performance with radiologists.
Materials And Methods:
This retrospective study developed two AI models using 297 staging CT scans (81 metastatic) with 4601 benign and 1911 metastatic lesions in PCa patients. Metastases were validated by follow-up scans, bone biopsy, or PET/CT. Segmentation AI (3DAISeg) was developed using the lesion contours delineated by a radiologist. 3DAISeg performance was evaluated with the Dice similarity coefficient, and classification AI (3DAIClass) performance on AI and radiologist contours was assessed with F1-score and accuracy. Training/validation/testing data partitions of 70:15:15 were used. A multi-reader study was performed with two junior and two senior radiologists within a subset of the testing dataset (n = 36).
Results:
In 45 unseen staging CT scans (12 metastatic PCa) with 669 benign and 364 metastatic lesions, 3DAISeg detected 73.1% of metastatic (266/364) and 72.4% of benign lesions (484/669). Each scan averaged 12 extra segmentations (range: 1-31). All metastatic scans had at least one detected metastatic lesion, achieving a 100% patient-level detection. The mean Dice score for 3DAISeg was 0.53 (median: 0.59, range: 0-0.87). The F1 for 3DAIClass was 94.8% (radiologist contours) and 92.4% (3DAISeg contours), with a median false positive of 0 (range: 0-3). Using radiologist contours, 3DAIClass had PPV and NPV rates comparable to junior and senior radiologists: PPV (semi-automated approach AI 40.0% vs. Juniors 32.0% vs. Seniors 50.0%) and NPV (AI 96.2% vs. Juniors 95.7% vs. Seniors 91.9%). When using 3DAISeg, 3DAIClass mimicked junior radiologists in PPV (pure-AI 20.0% vs. Juniors 32.0% vs. Seniors 50.0%) but surpassed seniors in NPV (pure-AI 93.8% vs. Juniors 95.7% vs. Seniors 91.9%).
Conclusion:
Our lesion detection and classification AI model performs on par with junior and senior radiologists in discerning benign and metastatic lesions on staging CTs obtained for PCa.
