Deep Learning Features Can Improve Radiomics-Based Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness Prediction.

Abstract

Purpose: Emerging evidence suggests that the use of artificial intelligence can assist in the timely detection and optimization of therapeutic approach in patients with prostate cancer. The conventional perspective on radiomics encompassing segmentation and the extraction of radiomic features considers it as an independent and sequential process. However, it is not necessary to adhere to this viewpoint. In this study, we show that besides generating masks from which radiomic features can be extracted, prostate segmentation and reconstruction models provide valuable information in their feature space, which can improve the quality of radiomic signatures models for disease aggressiveness classification.

Materials and methods: We perform 2,244 experiments with deep learning features extracted from 13 different models trained using different anatomic zones and characterize how modeling decisions, such as deep feature aggregation and dimensionality reduction, affect performance.

Results: While models using deep features from full gland and radiomic features consistently lead to improved disease aggressiveness prediction performance, others are detrimental. Our results suggest that the use of deep features can be beneficial, but an appropriate and comprehensive assessment is necessary to ensure that their inclusion does not harm predictive performance.

Conclusion: The study findings reveal that incorporating deep features derived from autoencoder models trained to reconstruct the full prostate gland (both zonal models show worse performance than radiomics only models), combined with radiomic features, often lead to a statistically significant increase in model performance for disease aggressiveness classification. Additionally, the results also demonstrate that the choice of feature selection is key to achieving good performance, with principal component analysis (PCA) and PCA + relief being the best approaches and that there is no clear difference between the three proposed latent representation extraction techniques.