Abstract
Purpose To investigate the effect of scanner and prostate MRI acquisition characteristics when compared to PI-RADSv2.1 technical standards in the performance of a deep learning prostate segmentation model trained with data from one center (INST1), longitudinally evaluated at the same institution and when transferred to other institutions.
Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, a nn-UNet for prostate MRI segmentation was trained with data from 204 patients from one institution (INST1) (0.50mm2 in-plane, 3.6mm thickness and 16cm field of view [FOV]). Post-deployment performance at INST1 was tested with 30 patients acquired with a different protocol and in a different period of time (0.60mm2 in-plane, 4.0mm thickness and 19cm FOV). Transferability was tested on 248 patient sequences from five institutions (INST2, INST3, INST4, INST5 and INST6) acquired with different scanners and with heterogeneous degrees of PI-RADS v2.1 technical adherence. Performance was assessed using Dice Score Coefficient, Hausdorff Distance, Absolute Boundary Distance and Relative Volume Difference.
Results The model presented a significant degradation for the whole gland (WG) in the presence of a change of acquisition protocol at INST1 (DSC:99.46±0.12% and 91.24±3.32%,P<.001; RVD:-0.006±0.127% and 8.10±8.16%, P<.001). The model had a significantly higher performance in centers adhering to PI-RADS v2.1 when compared to those that did not (DSC: 86.24±9.67% and 74.83±15.45%, P <.001; RVD: -6.50±18.46% and 1.64±29.12%, P=.003).
Conclusions Adherence to PI-RADSv2.1 technical standards benefits inter-institutional transferability of a deep learning prostate segmentation model. Post-deployment evaluations are critical to ensure model performance is maintained over time in the presence of protocol acquisition modifications.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by Helse Vest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REC Central Norway) approved the use of the ataset (2019/272). All the patients signed informed consent prior to the collection of the data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
