% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Bonekamp:141988,
author = {D. Bonekamp$^*$ and S. Kohl$^*$ and M. Wiesenfarth$^*$ and
P. Schelb$^*$ and J. P. Radtke$^*$ and M. Götz$^*$ and P.
Kickingereder$^*$ and K. Yaqubi$^*$ and B. Hitthaler and N.
Gählert$^*$ and T. A. Kuder$^*$ and F. Deister$^*$ and M.
Freitag$^*$ and M. Hohenfellner and B. A. Hadaschik and
H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$ and K. Maier-Hein$^*$},
title = {{R}adiomic {M}achine {L}earning for {C}haracterization of
{P}rostate {L}esions with {MRI}: {C}omparison to {ADC}
{V}alues.},
journal = {Radiology},
volume = {289},
number = {1},
issn = {1527-1315},
address = {Oak Brook, Ill.},
publisher = {Soc.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2018-02218},
pages = {128 - 137},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Purpose To compare biparametric contrast-free radiomic
machine learning (RML), mean apparent diffusion coefficient
(ADC), and radiologist assessment for characterization of
prostate lesions detected during prospective MRI
interpretation. Materials and Methods This
single-institution study included 316 men (mean age ±
standard deviation, 64.0 years ± 7.8) with an indication
for MRI-transrectal US fusion biopsy between May 2015 and
September 2016 (training cohort, 183 patients; test cohort,
133 patients). Lesions identified by prospective clinical
readings were manually segmented for mean ADC and radiomics
analysis. Global and zone-specific random forest RML and
mean ADC models for classification of clinically significant
prostate cancer (Gleason grade group ≥ 2) were developed
on the training set and the fixed models tested on an
independent test set. Clinical readings, mean ADC, and
radiomics were compared by using the McNemar test and
receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results In
the test set, radiologist interpretation had a per-lesion
sensitivity of $88\%$ (53 of 60) and specificity of $50\%$
(79 of 159). Quantitative measurement of the mean ADC
(cut-off 732 mm2/sec) significantly reduced false-positive
(FP) lesions from 80 to 60 (specificity $62\%$ [99 of 159])
and false-negative (FN) lesions from seven to six
(sensitivity $90\%$ [54 of 60]) (P = .048). Radiologist
interpretation had a per-patient sensitivity of $89\%$ (40
of 45) and specificity of $43\%$ (38 of 88). Quantitative
measurement of the mean ADC reduced the number of patients
with FP lesions from 50 to 43 (specificity $51\%$ [45 of
88]) and the number of patients with FN lesions from five to
three (sensitivity $93\%$ [42 of 45]) (P = .496). Comparison
of the area under the ROC curve (AUC) for the mean ADC
(AUCglobal = 0.84; AUCzone-specific ≤ 0.87) vs the RML
(AUCglobal = 0.88, P = .176; AUCzone-specific ≤ 0.89, P
≥ .493) showed no significantly different performance.
Conclusion Quantitative measurement of the mean apparent
diffusion coefficient (ADC) improved differentiation of
benign versus malignant prostate lesions, compared with
clinical assessment. Radiomic machine learning had
comparable but not better performance than mean ADC
assessment. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is
available for this article.},
cin = {E010 / E230 / E020 / C060 / L101},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)E230-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)E020-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)L101-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Imaging and radiooncology (POF3-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:30063191},
doi = {10.1148/radiol.2018173064},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/141988},
}