Augmenting MRI–transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with temporal ultrasound data: a clinical feasibility study
- 348 Downloads
In recent years, fusion of multi-parametric MRI (mp-MRI) with transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsy has enabled targeted prostate biopsy with improved cancer yield. Target identification is solely based on information from mp-MRI, which is subsequently transferred to the subject coordinates through an image registration approach. mp-MRI has shown to be highly sensitive to detect higher-grade prostate cancer, but suffers from a high rate of false positives for lower-grade cancer, leading to unnecessary biopsies. This paper utilizes a machine-learning framework to further improve the sensitivity of targeted biopsy through analyzing temporal ultrasound data backscattered from the prostate tissue.
Temporal ultrasound data were acquired during targeted fusion prostate biopsy from suspicious cancer foci identified in mp-MRI. Several spectral features, representing the signature of backscattered signal from the tissue, were extracted from the temporal ultrasound data. A supervised support vector machine classification model was trained to relate the features to the result of histopathology analysis of biopsy cores obtained from cancer foci. The model was used to predict the label of biopsy cores for mp-MRI-identified targets in an independent group of subjects.
Training of the classier was performed on data obtained from 35 biopsy cores. A fivefold cross-validation strategy was utilized to examine the consistency of the selected features from temporal ultrasound data, where we achieved the classification accuracy and area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 94 % and 0.98, respectively. Subsequently, an independent group of 25 biopsy cores was used for validation of the model, in which mp-MRI had identified suspicious cancer foci. Using the trained model, we predicted the tissue pathology using temporal ultrasound data: 16 out of 17 benign cores, as well as all three higher-grade cancer cores, were correctly identified.
The results show that temporal analysis of ultrasound data is potentially an effective approach to complement mp-MRI–TRUS-guided prostate cancer biopsy, specially to reduce the number of unnecessary biopsies and to reliably identify higher-grade cancers.
KeywordsTemporal ultrasound data Cancer diagnosis Prostate cancer
The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Jochen Kruecker and Pingkun Yan for assisting with the experiments. This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Feleppa E, Porter C, Ketterling J, Dasgupta S, Ramachandran S, Sparks D (2007) Recent advances in ultrasonic tissue-type imaging of the prostate. Acoust Imaging 28:331–339Google Scholar
- 7.Imani F, Abolmaesumi P, Gibson E, Khojasteh A, Gaed M, Moussa M, Gomez J, Romagnoli C, Siemens D, Leveridge M, Chang S, Fenster A, Ward A, Mousavi P (2013) Ultrasound-based characterization of prostate cancer: an in vivo clinical feasibility study. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp 279–286Google Scholar
- 9.Krucker J, Xu S, Glossop N, Guion P, Choyke P, Ocak I, Singh AK, Wood BJ (2007) Fusion of realtime transrectal ultrasound with pre-acquired MRI for multi-modality prostate imaging. In: SPIE, p 650912Google Scholar
- 10.Lin H, Lin C, Weng R (2003) A note on platt’s probabilistic outputs for support vector machines. Technical report, Department of Computer Science, National Taiwan University, vol 68, pp 267–276Google Scholar
- 11.Margel D, Yap S, Lawrentschuk N, Klotz L, Haider M, Hersey K, Finelli A, Zlotta A, Trachtenberg J, Fleshner N (2012) Impact of multiparametric endorectal coil prostate magnetic resonance imaging on disease reclassification among active surveillance candidates: a prospective cohort study. J Urol 187(4):1247–1252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Moradi M, Mahdavi S, Nir G, Jones E, Goldenberg S, Salcudean S (2013) Ultrasound RF time series for tissue typing: first in vivo clinical results. In: SPIE 8670, Medical Imaging, pp 86701I1–86701I8Google Scholar
- 22.Platt J (1999) Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Adv Larg Margin Classif 10(3):61–74Google Scholar
- 26.Turkbey B, Shah V, Pang Y, Bernardo M, Xu S, Kruecker J, Locklin J, Baccala AJ, Rastinehad A, Merino M, Shih J, Wood B, Pinto P, Choyke P (2011) Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T mr images? Radiology 258(2):488–495CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Uniyal N, Imani F, Tahmasebi A, Agarwal H, Bharat S, Yan P, Kruecker J, Kwak JT, Xu S, Wood B, Pinto P, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Abolmaesumi P, Mousavi P, Moradi M (2014) Ultrasound-based prediction of prostate cancer in MRI-guided biopsy. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention workshop on clinical image-based proceduresGoogle Scholar
- 28.Xie S, Li H, Du J, Xia J, Guo Y, Xin M, Li F (2013) Influence of serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, prostate volume, and PSA density on prostate cancer detection with contrast-enhanced sonography using contrast-tuned imaging technology. J Ultrasound Med 32(5):741–748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Xu S, Kruecker J, Guion P, Glossop N, Neeman Z, Choyke P, Singh AK, Wood B (2007) Closed-loop control in fused MR-TRUS image-guided prostate biopsy. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp 128–135Google Scholar