Back to Authors

Takahashi, Hiroaki

0000-0002-5848-7654

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 1

Prostate Cancer Risk Prediction Model Using Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging–Related Findings: Impact of Combining Lesions’ Locations and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values
Froemming, Adam T. , Klug, Jason R., Korfiatis, Panagiotis , Lomas, Derek J. , Humphreys, Mitchell R. , Takahashi, Naoki , Takahashi, Hiroaki , Nakai, Hirotsugu , LeGout, Jordan D. , Dora, Chandler , Takahashi, Naoki , Takahashi, Hiroaki , Takahashi, Hiroaki , Kawashima, Akira

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography | November 14, 2024 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 247-257

10.1097/rct.0000000000001679 Get It

Objectives: The aims of the study are to develop a prostate cancer risk prediction model that combines clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–related findings and to assess the impact of adding Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) ≥3 lesions-level findings on its diagnostic performance. Methods: This 3-center retrospective study included prostate MRI examinations performed with clinical suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between 2018 and 2022. Pathological diagnosis within 1 year after the MRI was used to diagnose csPCa. Seven clinical, 3 patient-level MRI-related, and 4 lesion-level MRI-related findings were extracted. After feature selection, 2 logistic regression models with and without lesions-level findings were created using data from facility I and II (development cohort). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between the 2 models was compared in the PI-RADS ≥3 population in the development cohort and Facility III (validation cohort) using the Delong test. Interfacility differences of the selected predictive variables were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test or chi-squared test. Results: Selected lesion-level features included the peripheral zone involvement and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values. The model with lesions-level findings had significantly higher AUC than the model without in 655 examinations in the development cohort (0.81 vs 0.79, respectively, P = 0.005), but not in 553 examinations in the validation cohort (0.77 vs 0.76, respectively). Large interfacility differences were seen in the ADC distribution (P < 0.001) and csPCa proportion in PI-RADS 3–5 (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Adding lesions-level findings improved the csPCa discrimination in the development but not the validation cohort. Interfacility differences impeded model generalization, including the distribution of reported ADC values and PI-RADS score-level csPCa proportion.