Detection and grading of prostate cancer using temporal enhanced ultrasound: combining deep neural networks and tissue mimicking simulations
- 648 Downloads
Temporal Enhanced Ultrasound (TeUS) has been proposed as a new paradigm for tissue characterization based on a sequence of ultrasound radio frequency (RF) data. We previously used TeUS to successfully address the problem of prostate cancer detection in the fusion biopsies.
In this paper, we use TeUS to address the problem of grading prostate cancer in a clinical study of 197 biopsy cores from 132 patients. Our method involves capturing high-level latent features of TeUS with a deep learning approach followed by distribution learning to cluster aggressive cancer in a biopsy core. In this hypothesis-generating study, we utilize deep learning based feature visualization as a means to obtain insight into the physical phenomenon governing the interaction of temporal ultrasound with tissue.
Based on the evidence derived from our feature visualization, and the structure of tissue from digital pathology, we build a simulation framework for studying the physical phenomenon underlying TeUS-based tissue characterization.
Results from simulation and feature visualization corroborated with the hypothesis that micro-vibrations of tissue microstructure, captured by low-frequency spectral features of TeUS, can be used for detection of prostate cancer.
KeywordsTemporal enhanced ultrasound Deep learning Deep belief network Cancer grading Prostate cancer
This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and in part by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 2.Azizi S, Imani F, Kwak JT, Tahmasebi A, Xu S, Yan P, Kruecker J, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Pinto P, Wood B, Mousavi P, Abolmaesumi P (2016) Classifying cancer grades using temporal ultrasound for transrectal prostate biopsy. International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, Berlin, pp 653–661Google Scholar
- 3.Azizi S, Imani F, Zhuang B, Tahmasebi A, Kwak JT, Xu S, Uniyal N, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Pinto P, Wood B, Mousavi P, Abolmaesumi P (2015) Ultrasound-based detection of prostate cancer using automatic feature selection with deep belief networks. International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, Berlin, pp 70–77Google Scholar
- 5.Bengio Y, Lamblin P, Popovici D, Larochelle H (2007) Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 19:153Google Scholar
- 7.Daoud MI, Lacefield JC (2011) Three-dimensional computer simulation of high-frequency ultrasound imaging of healthy and cancerous murine liver tissues. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 79,680H–79,680H. International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
- 9.Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Pierorazio PM (2012) Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol 61(5):1019–1024CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hunt JW, Worthington AE, Xuan A, Kolios MC, Czarnota GJ, Sherar MD (2002) A model based upon pseudo regular spacing of cells combined with the randomisation of the nuclei can explain the significant changes in high-frequency ultrasound signals during apoptosis. Ultrasound Med Biol 28(2):217–226CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Iczkowski KA, Torkko KC, Kotnis GR, Wilson RS, Huang W, Wheeler TM, Abeyta AM, La Rosa FG, Cook S, Werahera PN (2011) Digital quantification of five high-grade prostate cancer patterns, including the cribriform pattern, and their association with adverse outcome. Am J Clin Pathol 136(1):98–107CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.Imani F, Zhuang B, Tahmasebi A, Kwak JT, Xu S, Agarwal H, Bharat S, Uniyal N, Turkbey IB, Choyke P, Pinto P (2015) Augmenting MRI–transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy with temporal ultrasound data: a clinical feasibility study. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 10(6):727–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Jensen JA (2004) Simulation of advanced ultrasound systems using field II. In: IEEE international symposium on biomedical imaging: nano to macro, IEEE 2004 , pp. 636–639Google Scholar
- 19.Khojaste A, Imani F, Moradi M, Berman D, Siemens DR, Sauerberi EE, Boag AH, Abolmaesumi P, Mousavi P (2015) Characterization of aggressive prostate cancer using ultrasound RF time series. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 94,141A–94,141A. International society for optics and photonicsGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kuru TH, Roethke MC, Seidenader J, Simpfendörfer T, Boxler S, Alammar K, Rieker P, Popeneciu VI, Roth W, Pahernik S (2013) Critical evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging targeted, transrectal ultrasound guided transperineal fusion biopsy for detection of prostate cancer. J Urol 190(4):1380–1386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Moradi M, Mahdavi SS, Nir G, Jones EC, Goldenberg SL, Salcudean SE (2013) Ultrasound RF time series for tissue typing: first in vivo clinical results. In: SPIE Medical Imaging, pp. 86,701I–86,701I. International society for optics and photonicsGoogle Scholar
- 29.Siddiqui MM, Rais-Bahrami S, Turkbey B, George AK, Rothwax J, Shakir N, Okoro C, Raskolnikov D, Parnes HL, Linehan WM (2015) Comparison of MR/ultrasound fusion–guided biopsy with ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Jama 313(4):390–397CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 30.Singer EA, Kaushal A, Turkbey B, Couvillon A, Pinto PA, Parnes HL (2012) Active surveillance for prostate cancer: past, present and future. Curr Opin Oncol 24(3):243–250Google Scholar