Dataset Information

Radiomic and Genomic Machine Learning Method Performance for Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Machine learning algorithms have been drawing attention at the joining of pathology and radiology in prostate cancer research. However, due to their algorithmic learning complexity and the variability of their architecture, there is an ongoing need to analyze their performance.

Objective

This study assesses the source of heterogeneity and the performance of machine learning applied to radiomic, genomic, and clinical biomarkers for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. One research focus of this study was on clearly identifying problems and issues related to the implementation of machine learning in clinical studies.

Methods

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol, 816 titles were identified from the PubMed, Scopus, and OvidSP databases. Studies that used machine learning to detect prostate cancer and provided performance measures were included in our analysis. The quality of the eligible studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 (quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-version 2) tool. The hierarchical multivariate model was applied to the pooled data in a meta-analysis. To investigate the heterogeneity among studies, I² statistics were performed along with visual evaluation of coupled forest plots. Due to the internal heterogeneity among machine learning algorithms, subgroup analysis was carried out to investigate the diagnostic capability of machine learning systems in clinical practice.

Results

In the final analysis, 37 studies were included, of which 29 entered the meta-analysis pooling. The analysis of machine learning methods to detect prostate cancer reveals the limited usage of the methods and the lack of standards that hinder the implementation of machine learning in clinical applications.

Conclusions

The performance of machine learning for diagnosis of prostate cancer was considered satisfactory for several studies investigating the multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and urine biomarkers; however, given the limitations indicated in our study, further studies are warranted to extend the potential use of machine learning to clinical settings. Recommendations on the use of machine learning techniques were also provided to help researchers to design robust studies to facilitate evidence generation from the use of radiomic and genomic biomarkers.

SUBMITTER: Castaldo R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8050752 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDifferent machine learning algorithms (MLAs) for automated segmentation of gliomas have been reported in the literature. Automated segmentation of different tumor characteristics can be of added value for the diagnostic work-up and treatment planning. The purpose of this study was to provide an overview and meta-analysis of different MLA methods.MethodsA systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed on the eligible studies describing the segmentation of gliomas. Meta-analysis of the performance was conducted on the reported dice similarity coefficient (DSC) score of both the aggregated results as two subgroups (i.e., high-grade and low-grade gliomas). This study was registered in PROSPERO prior to initiation (CRD42020191033).ResultsAfter the literature search (n = 734), 42 studies were included in the systematic literature review. Ten studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Overall, the MLAs from the included studies showed an overall DSC score of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86). In addition, a DSC score of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.78-0.87) was observed for the automated glioma segmentation of the high-grade and low-grade gliomas, respectively. However, heterogeneity was considerably high between included studies, and publication bias was observed.ConclusionMLAs facilitating automated segmentation of gliomas show good accuracy, which is promising for future implementation in neuroradiology. However, before actual implementation, a few hurdles are yet to be overcome. It is crucial that quality guidelines are followed when reporting on MLAs, which includes validation on an external test set.Key points• MLAs from the included studies showed an overall DSC score of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.82-0.86), indicating a good performance. • MLA performance was comparable when comparing the segmentation results of the high-grade gliomas and the low-grade gliomas. • For future studies using MLAs, it is crucial that quality guidelines are followed when reporting on MLAs, which includes validation on an external test set.

Project description:PurposeTo establish machine learning(ML) models for the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPC) using multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), texture analysis (TA), dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) quantitative analysis and clinical parameters and to evaluate the stability of these models in internal and temporal validation.MethodsThe dataset of 194 men was split into training (n = 135) and internal validation (n = 59) cohorts, and a temporal dataset (n = 58) was used for evaluation. The lesions with Gleason score ≥ 7 were defined as csPC. Logistic regression (LR), stepwise regression (SR), classical decision tree (cDT), conditional inference tree (CIT), random forest (RF) and support vector machine (SVM) models were established by combining mpMRI-TA, DCE-MRI and clinical parameters and validated by internal and temporal validation using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Delong's method.ResultsEight variables were determined as important predictors for csPC, with the first three related to texture features derived from the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping. RF, LR and SR models yielded larger and more stable area under the ROC curve values (AUCs) than other models. In the temporal validation, the sensitivity was lower than that of the internal validation (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and AUC (p > 0.05).ConclusionsEach machine learning model in this study has good classification ability for csPC. Compared with internal validation, the sensitivity of each machine learning model in temporal validation was reduced, but the specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV and AUCs remained stable at a good level. The RF, LR and SR models have better classification performance in the imaging-based diagnosis of csPC, and ADC texture-related parameters are of the highest importance.