Alberto Nieri, Luigi Manco, Matteo Bauckneht, Luca Urso, Matteo Caracciolo, Maria Isabella Donegani, Francesca Borgia, Kevin Vega, Alessandro Colella, Carmelo Ippolito, Corrado Cittanti, Silvia Morbelli, Gianmario Sambuceti, Alessandro Turra, Stefano Panareo, Mirco Bartolomei
{"title":"[18F]FDG PET-TC radiomics and machine learning in the evaluation of prostate incidental uptake.","authors":"Alberto Nieri, Luigi Manco, Matteo Bauckneht, Luca Urso, Matteo Caracciolo, Maria Isabella Donegani, Francesca Borgia, Kevin Vega, Alessandro Colella, Carmelo Ippolito, Corrado Cittanti, Silvia Morbelli, Gianmario Sambuceti, Alessandro Turra, Stefano Panareo, Mirco Bartolomei","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2023.2280685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the relevance of incidental prostate [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG uptake (IPU) and to explore the potential of radiomics and machine learning (ML) to predict prostate cancer (PCa).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrieved [<sup>18</sup>F]FDG PET/CT scans with evidence of IPU performed in two institutions between 2015 and 2021. Patients were divided into PCa and non-PCa, according to the biopsy. Clinical and PET/CT-derived information (comprehensive of radiomic analysis) were acquired. Five ML models were developed and their performance in discriminating PCa vs non-PCa IPU was evaluated. Radiomic analysis was investigated to predict ISUP Grade.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 56 IPU were identified and 31 patients performed prostate biopsy. Eighteen of those were diagnosed as PCa. Only PSA and radiomic features (eight from CT and nine from PET images, respectively) showed statistically significant difference between PCa and non-PCa patients. Eight features were found to be robust between the two institutions. CT-based ML models showed good performance, especially in terms of negative predictive value (NPV 0.733-0.867). PET-derived ML models results were less accurate except the Random Forest model (NPV = 0.933). Radiomics could not accurately predict ISUP grade.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Paired with PSA, radiomic analysis seems to be promising to discriminate PCa/non-PCa IPU. ML could be a useful tool to identify non-PCa IPU, avoiding further investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2280685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the relevance of incidental prostate [18F]FDG uptake (IPU) and to explore the potential of radiomics and machine learning (ML) to predict prostate cancer (PCa).
Methods: We retrieved [18F]FDG PET/CT scans with evidence of IPU performed in two institutions between 2015 and 2021. Patients were divided into PCa and non-PCa, according to the biopsy. Clinical and PET/CT-derived information (comprehensive of radiomic analysis) were acquired. Five ML models were developed and their performance in discriminating PCa vs non-PCa IPU was evaluated. Radiomic analysis was investigated to predict ISUP Grade.
Results: Overall, 56 IPU were identified and 31 patients performed prostate biopsy. Eighteen of those were diagnosed as PCa. Only PSA and radiomic features (eight from CT and nine from PET images, respectively) showed statistically significant difference between PCa and non-PCa patients. Eight features were found to be robust between the two institutions. CT-based ML models showed good performance, especially in terms of negative predictive value (NPV 0.733-0.867). PET-derived ML models results were less accurate except the Random Forest model (NPV = 0.933). Radiomics could not accurately predict ISUP grade.
Conclusions: Paired with PSA, radiomic analysis seems to be promising to discriminate PCa/non-PCa IPU. ML could be a useful tool to identify non-PCa IPU, avoiding further investigations.