Leveraging Representation Learning for Bi-parametric Prostate MRI to Disambiguate PI-RADS 3 and Improve Biopsy Decision Strategies.

Abstract

Objectives: Despite its high negative predictive value (NPV) for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), MRI suffers from a substantial number of false positives, especially for intermediate-risk cases. In this work, we determine whether a deep learning model trained with PI-RADS-guided representation learning can disambiguate the PI-RADS 3 classification, detect csPCa from bi-parametric prostate MR images, and avoid unnecessary benign biopsies.

Materials and methods: This study included 28,263 MR examinations and radiology reports from 21,938 men imaged for known or suspected prostate cancer between 2015 and 2023 at our institution (21 imaging locations with 34 readers), with 6352 subsequent biopsies. We trained a deep learning model, a representation learner (RL), to learn how radiologists interpret conventionally acquired T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MR images, using exams in which the radiologists are confident in their risk assessments (PI-RADS 1 and 2 for the absence of csPCa vs. PI-RADS 4 and 5 for the presence of csPCa, n=21,465). We then trained biopsy-decision models to detect csPCa (Gleason score ≥7) using these learned image representations, and compared them to the performance of radiologists, and of models trained on other clinical variables (age, prostate volume, PSA, and PSA density) for treatment-naïve test cohorts consisting of only PI-RADS 3 (n=253, csPCa=103) and all PI-RADS (n=531, csPCa=300) cases.

Results: On the 2 test cohorts (PI-RADS-3-only, all-PI-RADS), RL-based biopsy-decision models consistently yielded higher AUCs in detecting csPCa (AUC=0.73 [0.66, 0.79], 0.88 [0.85, 0.91]) compared with radiologists (equivocal, AUC=0.79 [0.75, 0.83]) and the clinical model (AUCs=0.69 [0.62, 0.75], 0.78 [0.74, 0.82]). In the PIRADS-3-only cohort, all of whom would be biopsied using our institution's standard of care, the RL decision model avoided 41% (62/150) of benign biopsies compared with the clinical model (26%, P<0.001), and improved biopsy yield by 10% compared with the PI-RADS ≥3 decision strategy (0.50 vs. 0.40). Furthermore, on the all-PI-RADS cohort, RL decision model avoided 27% of additional benign biopsies (138/231) compared to radiologists (33%, P<0.001) with comparable sensitivity (93% vs. 92%), higher NPV (0.87 vs. 0.77), and biopsy yield (0.75 vs. 0.64). The combination of clinical and RL decision models further avoided benign biopsies (46% in PI-RADS-3-only and 62% in all-PI-RADS) while improving NPV (0.82, 0.88) and biopsy yields (0.52, 0.76) across the 2 test cohorts.

Conclusions: Our PI-RADS-guided deep learning RL model learns summary representations from bi-parametric prostate MR images that can provide additional information to disambiguate intermediate-risk PI-RADS 3 assessments. The resulting RL-based biopsy decision models also outperformed radiologists in avoiding benign biopsies while maintaining comparable sensitivity to csPCa for the all-PI-RADS cohort. Such AI models can easily be integrated into clinical practice to supplement radiologists' reads in general and improve biopsy yield for any equivocal decisions.