Artificial intelligence-based measurements of PET/CT imaging biomarkers are associated with disease-specific survival of high-risk prostate cancer patients

References

• Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M, et al. Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2020;77(4):403–417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giovacchini G, Guglielmo P, Mapelli P, et al. 11C-choline PET/CT predicts survival in prostate cancer patients with PSA1 NG/ml. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(4):921–929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evangelista L, Briganti A, Fanti S, et al. New clinical indications for (18)F/(11)C-choline, new tracers for positron emission tomography and a promising hybrid device for prostate cancer staging: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2016;70(1):161–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitajima K, Nakajo M, Kaida H, et al. Present and future roles of FDG-PET/CT imaging in the management of gastrointestinal cancer: an update. Nagoya J Med Sci. 2017;79(4):527–543.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esen T, Kilic M, Seymen H, et al. Can Ga-68 PSMA PET/CT replace conventional imaging modalities for primary lymph node and bone staging of prostate cancer? Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(2):218–220.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bodar YJL, Jansen B, Van Der Voorn P, et al. Detection of intraprostatic tumour localisation with 18F-PSMA PET/CT compared to radical prostatectomy specimens: is PSMA-targeted biopsy feasible? –the DeTeCT trial–. Eur Urol Suppl. 2019;18(10):e3377–e3378.
   Google Scholar
• Jadvar H, Desai B, Ji L, et al. Baseline 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters as imaging biomarkers of overall survival in castrate-resistant metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(8):1195–1201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wahl RL, Jacene H, Kasamon Y, et al. From RECIST to PERCIST: evolving considerations for PET response criteria in solid tumors. J Nucl Med. 2009;(Suppl 1):122S–150S.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Young H, Baum R, Cremerius U, et al. Measurement of clinical and subclinical tumour response using [18F]-fluorodeoxyglucose and positron emission tomography: review and 1999 EORTC recommendations. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(13):1773–1782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwyzer M, Ferraro DA, Muehlematter UJ, et al. Automated detection of lung cancer at ultralow dose PET/CT by deep neural networks - initial results. Lung Cancer. 2018;126:170–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong Z, Kim Y, Plichta K, et al. Simultaneous cosegmentation of tumors in PET-CT images using deep fully convolutional networks. Med Phys. 2019;46(2):619–633.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang B, Chen Z, Wu PM, et al. Fully automated delineation of gross tumor volume for head and neck cancer on PET-CT using deep learning: a dual-center study. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Anand A, Morris MJ, Larson SM, et al. Automated bone scan index as a quantitative imaging biomarker in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients being treated with enzalutamide. EJNMMI Res. 2016;6(1):23
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Armstrong AJ, Anand A, Edenbrandt L, et al. Phase 3 assessment of the automated bone scan index as a prognostic imaging biomarker of overall survival in men with metastatic Castration-Resistant prostate cancer: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(7):944–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoilund-Carlsen PF, Edenbrandt L, Alavi A. Global disease score (GDS) is the name of the game!. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(9):1768–1772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polymeri E, Sadik M, Kaboteh R, et al. Deep learning-based quantification of PET/CT prostate gland uptake: association with overall survival. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2020;40(2):106–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen MH, Petersen H, Hoilund-Carlsen PF, et al. Spine metastases in prostate cancer: comparison of technetium-99m-MDP whole-body bone scintigraphy, [(18) F]choline positron emission tomography(PET)/computed tomography (CT) and [(18) F]NaF PET/CT. BJU Int. 2014;114(6):818–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjolhede H, Ahlgren G, Almquist H, et al. ¹(8)F-fluorocholine PET/CT compared with extended pelvic lymph node dissection in high-risk prostate cancer. World J Urol. 2014;32(4):965–970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kjolhede H, Almquist H, Lyttkens K, et al. Pre-treatment (18)F-choline PET/CT is prognostic for biochemical recurrence, development of bone metastasis, and cancer specific mortality following radical local therapy of high-risk prostate cancer. Eur J Hybrid Imaging. 2018;2(1):16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mortensen MA, Borrelli P, Poulsen MH, et al. Artificial intelligence-based versus manual assessment of prostate cancer in the prostate gland: a method comparison study. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2019;39(6):399–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reske SN, Blumstein NM, Neumaier B, et al. Imaging prostate cancer with 11C-choline PET/CT. J Nucl Med. 2006;47(8):1249–1254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tseng JR, Yang LY, Lin YC, et al. Metabolic volumetric parameters in 11C-Choline PET/MR are superior PET imaging biomarkers for primary high-risk prostate cancer. Contrast Media Mol Imaging. 2018;2018:8945130.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buhmeida A, Pyrhonen S, Laato M, et al. Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. Diagnostic Pathol. 2006;1:4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seisen T, Roupret M, Gomez F, et al. A comprehensive review of genomic landscape, biomarkers and treatment sequencing in castration-resistant prostate cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2016;48:25–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozkan TA, Eruyar AT, Cebeci OO, et al. Interobserver variability in Gleason histological grading of prostate cancer. Scand J Urol. 2016;50(6):420–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman M, Ward KC, Osunkoya AO, et al. Frequency and determinants of disagreement and error in Gleason scores: a population-based study of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2012;72(13):1389–1398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zelic R, Garmo H, Zugna D, et al. Predicting prostate cancer death with different pretreatment risk stratification tools: a head-to-head comparison in a nationwide cohort study. Eur Urol. 2020;77(2):180–188.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eapen RS, Nzenza TC, Murphy DG, et al. PSMA PET applications in the prostate cancer journey: from diagnosis to theranostics. World J Urol. 2019;37(7):1255–1261.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morigi JJ, Stricker PD, van Leeuwen PJ, et al. Prospective comparison of 18F-Fluoromethylcholine versus 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT in prostate cancer patients who have rising PSA after curative treatment and are being considered for targeted therapy. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(8):1185–1190.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peduzzi P, Concato J, Feinstein AR, et al. Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis. II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48(12):1503–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar