Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Radiomic features for prostate cancer grade detection through formal verification

  • Computer Application
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim

Prostate cancer represents the most common cancer afflicting men. It may be asymptomatic at the early stage. In this paper, we propose a methodology aimed to detect the prostate cancer grade by computing non-invasive shape-based radiomic features directly from magnetic resonance images.

Materials and methods

We use a freely available dataset composed by coronal magnetic resonance images belonging to 112 patients. We represent magnetic resonance slices in terms of formal model, and we exploit model checking to check whether a set of properties (formulated with the support of pathologists and radiologists) is verified on the formal model. Each property is related to a different cancer grade with the aim to cover all the cancer grade groups.

Results

An average specificity equal to 0.97 and an average sensitivity equal to 1 have been obtained with our methodology.

Conclusion

The experimental analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of radiomics and formal verification for Gleason grade group detection from magnetic resonance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://wiki.cancerimagingarchive.net/.

  2. https://www.slicer.org/.

  3. https://lifexsoft.org/.

  4. https://pyradiomics.readthedocs.io.

References

  1. Abele T, Besachio D, Quigley E, Gurgel R, Shelton C, Harnsberger H, Wiggins R (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of screening MR imaging using unenhanced axial ciss and coronal t2wi for detection of small internal auditory canal lesions. Am J Neuroradiol 35(12):2366–2370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A (2019a) An ensemble learning approach for brain cancer detection exploiting radiomic features. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 185:105134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A (2019b) Formal methods for prostate cancer gleason score and treatment prediction using radiomic biomarkers. Magn Reson Imaging 66:165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A (2019c) Neural networks for lung cancer detection through radiomic features. In: 2019 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN), IEEE, pp 1–10

  5. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A (2019d) Prostate gleason score detection and cancer treatment through real-time formal verification. IEEE Access 7:186236–186246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A (2019e) Radiomic features for medical images tamper detection by equivalence checking. Procedia Comput Sci 159:1795–1802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brunese L, Mercaldo F, Reginelli A, Santone A (2020) Explainable deep learning for pulmonary disease and coronavirus covid-19 detection from x-rays. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 196:105608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cameron A, Khalvati F, Haider MA, Wong A (2015) Maps: a quantitative radiomics approach for prostate cancer detection. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 63(6):1145–1156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cao R, Bajgiran AM, Mirak SA, Shakeri S, Zhong X, Enzmann D, Raman S, Sung K (2019) Joint prostate cancer detection and gleason score prediction in mp-MRI via focalnet. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 38:2496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ceccarelli M, Cerulo L, Santone A (2014) De novo reconstruction of gene regulatory networks from time series data, an approach based on formal methods. Methods 69(3):298–305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Chaddad A, Kucharczyk M, Niazi T (2018) Multimodal radiomic features for the predicting gleason score of prostate cancer. Cancers 10(8):249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cimino MG, De Francesco N, Mercaldo F, Santone A, Vaglini G (2020) Model checking for malicious family detection and phylogenetic analysis in mobile environment. Comput Secur 90:101691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dougherty J, Kohavi R, Sahami M (1995) Supervised and unsupervised discretization of continuous features. In: Machine learning proceedings 1995, Elsevier, pp 194–202

  14. Doyle S, Madabhushi A, Feldman M, Tomaszeweski J (2006) A boosting cascade for automated detection of prostate cancer from digitized histology. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Springer, pp 504–511

  15. Fernandez J-C, Garavel H, Kerbrat A, Mounier L, Mateescu R, Sighireanu M (1996) CADP a protocol validation and verification toolbox. In: International conference on computer aided verification, Springer, pp 437–440

  16. Francesco Nd, Lettieri G, Santone A, Vaglini G (2014) Grease: a tool for efficient nonequivalence checking. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol 23(3):24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Francesco ND, Santone A, Vaglini G (2007) A user-friendly interface to specify temporal properties of concurrent systems. Inf Sci 177(1):299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gardin I, Grégoire V, Gibon D, Kirisli H, Pasquier D, Thariat J, Vera P (2019) Radiomics: principles and radiotherapy applications. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 138:44

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang F, Ing N, Eric M, Salemi H, Lewis M, Garraway I, Gertych A, Knudsen B (2018) Abstract b094: quantitative digital image analysis and machine learning for staging of prostate cancer at diagnosis. Cancer Res 78:B094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hussain L, Ahmed A, Saeed S, Rathore S, Awan IA, Shah SA, Majid A, Idris A, Awan AA (2018) Prostate cancer detection using machine learning techniques by employing combination of features extracting strategies. Cancer Biomark 21:1–21 (Preprint)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ito Y, Udo K, Vertosick EA, Sjoberg DD, Vickers AJ, Al-Ahmadie HA, Chen Y-B, Gopalan A, Sirintrapun SJ, Tickoo SK et al (2019) Clinical usefulness of prostate and tumor volume related parameters following radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. J Urol 201(3):535–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Langerak R (1994) Transformations and semantics for LOTOS

  23. Lecouvet F (2016) Whole-body MR imaging: musculoskeletal applications. Radiology 279(2):345–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li R, Xing L, Napel S, Rubin DL (2019) Radiomics and radiogenomics: technical basis and clinical applications. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Litjens G, Debats O, Barentsz J, Karssemeijer N, Huisman H (2014) Computer-aided detection of prostate cancer in MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 33(5):1083–1092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Marshall CH, Fu W, Wang H, Baras AS, Lotan TL, Antonarakis ES (2019) Prevalence of dna repair gene mutations in localized prostate cancer according to clinical and pathologic features: association of gleason score and tumor stage. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 22(1):59

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Mercaldo F, Martinelli F, Santone A (2019) Real-time scada attack detection by means of formal methods. In: 2019 IEEE 28th international conference on enabling technologies: infrastructure for collaborative enterprises (WETICE), pp 231–236

  28. Milner R (1989) Communication and concurrency. PHI Series in computer science. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen T.H, Sridharan S, Marcias V, Balla AK, Do MN, Popescu G (2016) Automatic gleason grading of prostate cancer using slim and machine learning. In: Quantitative phase imaging II, International Society for Optics and Photonics, vol 9718, p 97180Y

  30. Parnas DL (2017) The real risks of artificial intelligence. Commun ACM 60(10):27–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sobecki P, Gora A, Zycka-Malesa D, Sklinda K, Mykhalevych I, Przelaskowski A (2017) Feature extraction optimized for prostate lesion classification. vol Part F128534, pp 22–27

  32. Stirling C (1989) An introduction to modal and temporal logics for CCS. Concurrency: theory language and architecture. Springer, Berlin, pp 2–20

    Google Scholar 

  33. Trebeschi S, Drago S, Birkbak N, Kurilova I, Clin A, Pizzi AD, Lalezari F, Lambregts D, Rohaan M, Parmar C et al (2019) Predicting response to cancer immunotherapy using non-invasive radiomic biomarkers. Ann Oncol 30:998

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Van Griethuysen JJ, Fedorov A, Parmar C, Hosny A, Aucoin N, Narayan V, Beets-Tan RG, Fillion-Robin J-C, Pieper S, Aerts HJ (2017) Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 77(21):e104–e107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Vos PC, Hambrock T, Barenstz JO, Huisman HJ (2010) Computer-assisted analysis of peripheral zone prostate lesions using t2-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced t1-weighted MRI. Phys Med Biol 55(6):1719

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Health Sciences “Vincenzo Tiberio”, University of Molise, Campobasso, Italy

    Antonella Santone, Maria Chiara Brunese, Federico Donnarumma, Pasquale Guerriero, Francesco Mercaldo & Luca Brunese

  2. Department of Precision Medicine, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Napoli, Italy

    Alfonso Reginelli

  3. AOU Careggi University Hospital, Firenze, Italy

    Vittorio Miele

  4. Department of Radiology, Ospedali Riuniti, Universit Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Andrea Giovagnoni

Authors
  1. Antonella Santone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maria Chiara Brunese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Federico Donnarumma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pasquale Guerriero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Francesco Mercaldo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alfonso Reginelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Vittorio Miele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Andrea Giovagnoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Luca Brunese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Mercaldo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors confirm that there are not potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations and grants or other funding. Ethics committee/IRB was obtained and patient informed consent was obtained.

Ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santone, A., Brunese, M.C., Donnarumma, F. et al. Radiomic features for prostate cancer grade detection through formal verification. Radiol med 126, 688–697 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01314-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-020-01314-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation