Improved differentiation of prostate cancer using advanced diffusion models: a comparative study of mono-exponential, fractional-order-calculus, and multi-compartment models

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Abdominal Radiology Pub Date : 2025-02-18 DOI:10.1007/s00261-024-04684-z
Yongsheng He, Xuan Qi, Min-Xiong Zhou, Mengxiao Liu, Hongkai Yang, Wuling Wang, Bing Du, Shengdong Nie, Xu Yan
{"title":"Improved differentiation of prostate cancer using advanced diffusion models: a comparative study of mono-exponential, fractional-order-calculus, and multi-compartment models","authors":"Yongsheng He,&nbsp;Xuan Qi,&nbsp;Min-Xiong Zhou,&nbsp;Mengxiao Liu,&nbsp;Hongkai Yang,&nbsp;Wuling Wang,&nbsp;Bing Du,&nbsp;Shengdong Nie,&nbsp;Xu Yan","doi":"10.1007/s00261-024-04684-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study aims to compare the performance of mono-exponential (Mono), fractional-order-calculus (FROC), and multi-compartment (MC) diffusion models in differentiating prostate lesions, including benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa), as well as classifying PCa by clinical significance and risk levels.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>\\A prospective study was conducted with 224 men (aged 50–80) undergoing 3 T MR imaging. Regions of interest (ROIs) analyses were performed on quantitative parameters from Mono, FROC, and MC models. These parameters were evaluated for their ability to distinguish BPH from PCa, clinically significant (CS) from clinically insignificant (CInS) PCa, and among PCa risk levels. Group differences were assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by post-hoc Dunn’s test. ROC curves were plotted, and AUC was calculated. Logistic regression was used for parameter combinations, and performance was evaluated via 1000 bootstrap samples. The correlation between parameter pairs was analyzed. The image quality and PCa detection capability were also evaluated visually.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>In distinguishing PCa from BPH, the F1, ADC, and D parameters from the three models achieved high AUCs of 0.92, 0.91, and 0.91, respectively. For differentiating CS-PCa from CInS-PCa, the F2 parameter and the combination of C1 + F2 from the MC model showed the highest AUCs (0.75 and 0.76). In assessing PCa risk levels, F2 and C1 + F2 from the MC model showed the highest AUCs (0.73 and 0.74) for low vs. intermediate-risk PCa. For intermediate vs. high-risk PCa, F1, F1F2, and β + F1F2 from MC and FROC models had the highest AUCs (0.66, 0.66, and 0.71). In addition, ADC was strongly or moderately correlated to D, μ, F1, F1F2, F3, C1 and C3, and not correlated to β and F2. ADC and C1 demonstrated high image quality and strong PCa detection capability.</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Advanced diffusion models, particularly the MC model, demonstrated a significant improvement over ADC in differentiating prostate lesions, especially between low and intermediate-risk PCa, between intermediate and high-risk PCa, and between clinically significant and insignificant PCa. Comparable performance was observed in distinguishing BPH from PCa among three models. Moreover, the combination of MC and FROC models further enhanced differentiation accuracy, particularly in the more challenging classifications between intermediate and high-risk PCa, where ADC alone proved inadequate. These results highlight the potential clinical value of MC model and combining MC and FROC models for more precise PCa risk stratification.</p><h3>Graphical abstract</h3>\n<div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":"50 9","pages":"4235 - 4248"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12331773/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00261-024-04684-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to compare the performance of mono-exponential (Mono), fractional-order-calculus (FROC), and multi-compartment (MC) diffusion models in differentiating prostate lesions, including benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and prostate cancer (PCa), as well as classifying PCa by clinical significance and risk levels.

Methods

\A prospective study was conducted with 224 men (aged 50–80) undergoing 3 T MR imaging. Regions of interest (ROIs) analyses were performed on quantitative parameters from Mono, FROC, and MC models. These parameters were evaluated for their ability to distinguish BPH from PCa, clinically significant (CS) from clinically insignificant (CInS) PCa, and among PCa risk levels. Group differences were assessed using the Mann–Whitney U test and Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by post-hoc Dunn’s test. ROC curves were plotted, and AUC was calculated. Logistic regression was used for parameter combinations, and performance was evaluated via 1000 bootstrap samples. The correlation between parameter pairs was analyzed. The image quality and PCa detection capability were also evaluated visually.

Results

In distinguishing PCa from BPH, the F1, ADC, and D parameters from the three models achieved high AUCs of 0.92, 0.91, and 0.91, respectively. For differentiating CS-PCa from CInS-PCa, the F2 parameter and the combination of C1 + F2 from the MC model showed the highest AUCs (0.75 and 0.76). In assessing PCa risk levels, F2 and C1 + F2 from the MC model showed the highest AUCs (0.73 and 0.74) for low vs. intermediate-risk PCa. For intermediate vs. high-risk PCa, F1, F1F2, and β + F1F2 from MC and FROC models had the highest AUCs (0.66, 0.66, and 0.71). In addition, ADC was strongly or moderately correlated to D, μ, F1, F1F2, F3, C1 and C3, and not correlated to β and F2. ADC and C1 demonstrated high image quality and strong PCa detection capability.

Conclusion

Advanced diffusion models, particularly the MC model, demonstrated a significant improvement over ADC in differentiating prostate lesions, especially between low and intermediate-risk PCa, between intermediate and high-risk PCa, and between clinically significant and insignificant PCa. Comparable performance was observed in distinguishing BPH from PCa among three models. Moreover, the combination of MC and FROC models further enhanced differentiation accuracy, particularly in the more challenging classifications between intermediate and high-risk PCa, where ADC alone proved inadequate. These results highlight the potential clinical value of MC model and combining MC and FROC models for more precise PCa risk stratification.

Graphical abstract

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用先进的扩散模型改进前列腺癌的分化:单指数、分数阶演算和多室模型的比较研究。
目的:本研究旨在比较单指数(Mono)、分数阶微积分(FROC)和多室室(MC)扩散模型在前列腺病变(包括良性前列腺增生(BPH)和前列腺癌(PCa))鉴别中的表现,并根据临床意义和风险水平对PCa进行分类。方法:对224名年龄50-80岁的男性进行了前瞻性研究。对来自Mono、FROC和MC模型的定量参数进行感兴趣区域(roi)分析。评估这些参数区分BPH与PCa、临床显著性PCa (CS)与临床不显著性PCa (CInS)以及PCa风险水平的能力。采用Mann-Whitney U检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验评估组间差异,随后采用事后邓氏检验。绘制ROC曲线,计算AUC。采用逻辑回归进行参数组合,并通过1000个bootstrap样本对性能进行评估。分析了参数对之间的相关性。图像质量和主成分检测能力也进行了视觉评价。结果:三种模型的F1、ADC和D参数的auc分别达到了0.92、0.91和0.91的高auc。对于CS-PCa和CInS-PCa的区分,MC模型的F2参数和C1 + F2组合的auc最高(0.75和0.76)。在评估PCa风险水平时,MC模型的F2和C1 + F2显示低风险与中风险PCa的auc最高(0.73和0.74)。对于中高危PCa, MC和FROC模型的F1、F1F2和β + F1F2的auc最高(0.66、0.66和0.71)。ADC与D、μ、F1、F1F2、F3、C1和C3呈强或中度相关,与β和F2不相关。ADC和C1具有较高的图像质量和较强的PCa检测能力。结论:先进的弥散模型,特别是MC模型,在鉴别前列腺病变方面比ADC有显著改善,特别是在低危和中危PCa之间,在中危和高危PCa之间,在临床显著和不显著的PCa之间。在三种模型中,观察到在区分BPH和PCa方面的可比性表现。此外,MC和FROC模型的结合进一步提高了分化的准确性,特别是在中高风险PCa之间更具挑战性的分类中,单独使用ADC是不够的。这些结果突出了MC模型的潜在临床价值,以及MC和FROC模型相结合对更精确的PCa风险分层的潜在临床价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Abdominal Radiology
Abdominal Radiology Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
334
期刊介绍: Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section. Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology: · Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) · Published in Cooperation with: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR) · Efficient handling and Expeditious review · Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style · Global readership · Readers can earn CME credits
期刊最新文献
Navigating the new frontier: growth, integrity, and our vision for 2026 Early and delayed post-cesarean complications: an imaging review Correction to: Pictorial review of multiparametric MRI in bladder urothelial carcinoma with variant histology: pearls and pitfalls. Toward eliminating missed important findings in fibrostenosing Crohn’s disease at CT and MR enterography Non-Gaussian diffusion MRI models for preoperative assessment of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1