Radiomic Machine Learning and External Validation Based on 3.0 T mpMRI for Prediction of Intraductal Carcinoma of Prostate With Different Proportion

Radiomics signature improved differentiation of both hpIDC-P and lpIDC-P versus PAC when compared with the clinical model based on Gleason score, and was validated in an external cohort.

We retrospectively included pre-treatment MR images of prostate cancer (PCa) with IDC components of high proportion (≥10%, hpIDC-P), low proportion (<10%, lpIDC-P), and pure acinar adenocarcinoma (PAC) from our institution for training and internal validation and cooperated cohort for external validation. Normalized images of T2WI, diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map, and dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE) sequences were used for radiomics modeling. The clinical model was built based on serum total prostate specific antigen (tPSA) and Gleason score (GS), and the integrated model was the combination of Rad-score and clinicopathological data. The discrimination ability was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) in the internal and external validation sets and compared by DeLong test.

To assess the association of radiomics features based on multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) with the proportion of intraductal carcinoma of prostate (IDC-P) and validate the predictive models. Materials and

Overall, 97 patients with hpIDC-P, 87 lpIDC-P, and 78 PAC were included for training and internal validation, and 11, 16, and 19 patients for external validation. The integrated model for predicting hpIDC-P got the best ROC-AUC of 0.88 (95%CI = 0.83-0.93) in internal and 0.86 (95%CI = 0.72-1.0) in external validation, which both outperformed clinical models (AUC=0.78, 95% CI = 0.72-0.85, AUC=0.69, 95% CI = 0.5-0.85, respectively) based solely on GS, and the radiomics model (AUC=0.85, 95% CI = 0.79-0.91) was slightly inferior to the integrated model and better than the clinical model in internal dataset. The integrated model for predicting lpIDC-P outperformed both radiomics and clinical models in the internal dataset, while slightly inferior to the integrated model for predicting hpIDC-P. Conclusions: Radiomics signature improved differentiation of both hpIDC-P and lpIDC-P versus PAC when compared with the clinical model based on Gleason score, and was validated in an external cohort.