4.8 Article

Automatic classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from multiparametric magnetic resonance images

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1505935112

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH/NCI Cancer Center [P30 CA008748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Noninvasive, radiological image-based detection and stratification of Gleason patterns can impact clinical outcomes, treatment selection, and the determination of disease status at diagnosis without subjecting patients to surgical biopsies. We present machine learning-based automatic classification of prostate cancer aggressiveness by combining apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T2-weighted (T2-w) MRI-based texture features. Our approach achieved reasonably accurate classification of Gleason scores (GS) 6(3 + 3) vs. >= 7 and 7(3 + 4) vs. 7(4 + 3) despite the presence of highly unbalanced samples by using two different sample augmentation techniques followed by feature selection-based classification. Our method distinguished between GS 6(3 + 3) and >= 7 cancers with 93% accuracy for cancers occurring in both peripheral (PZ) and transition (TZ) zones and 92% for cancers occurring in the PZ alone. Our approach distinguished the GS 7(3 + 4) from GS 7(4 + 3) with 92% accuracy for cancers occurring in both the PZ and TZ and with 93% for cancers occurring in the PZ alone. In comparison, a classifier using only the ADC mean achieved a top accuracy of 58% for distinguishing GS 6(3 + 3) vs. GS >= 7 for cancers occurring in PZ and TZ and 63% for cancers occurring in PZ alone. The same classifier achieved an accuracy of 59% for distinguishing GS 7(3 + 4) from GS 7(4 + 3) occurring in the PZ and TZ and 60% for cancers occurring in PZ alone. Separate analysis of the cancers occurring in TZ alone was not performed owing to the limited number of samples. Our results suggest that texture features derived from ADC and T2-w MRI together with sample augmentation can help to obtain reasonably accurate classification of Gleason patterns.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据