Predicting the Grade of Prostate Cancer Based on a Biparametric MRI Radiomics Signature

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the value of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bp-MRI)-based radiomics signatures for the preoperative prediction of prostate cancer (PCa) grade compared with visual assessments by radiologists based on the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1 (PI-RADS V2.1) scores of multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI). METHODS: This retrospective study included 142 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed PCa who were undergoing mp-MRI before surgery. MRI images were scored and evaluated by two independent radiologists using PI-RADS V2.1. The radiomics workflow was divided into five steps: (a) image selection and segmentation, (b) feature extraction, (c) feature selection, (d) model establishment, and (e) model evaluation. Three machine learning algorithms (random forest tree (RF), logistic regression, and support vector machine (SVM)) were constructed to differentiate high-grade from low-grade PCa. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the machine learning-based analysis of bp-MRI radiomics models with PI-RADS V2.1. RESULTS: In all, 8 stable radiomics features out of 804 extracted features based on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and ADC sequences were selected. Radiomics signatures successfully categorized high-grade and low-grade PCa cases (P < 0.05) in both the training and test datasets. The radiomics model-based RF method (area under the curve, AUC: 0.982; 0.918), logistic regression (AUC: 0.886; 0.886), and SVM (AUC: 0.943; 0.913) in both the training and test cohorts had better diagnostic performance than PI-RADS V2.1 (AUC: 0.767; 0.813) when predicting PCa grade. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this clinical study indicate that machine learning-based analysis of bp-MRI radiomic models may be helpful for distinguishing high-grade and low-grade PCa that outperformed the PI-RADS V2.1 scores based on mp-MRI. The machine learning algorithm RF model was slightly better.