Objectives To investigate a previously developed radiomics-based biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) approach for discrimination of clinically significant peripheral zone prostate cancer (PZ csPCa) using multi-center, multi-vendor (McMv) and single-center, single-vendor (ScSv) datasets. Methods This study’s starting point was a previously developed ScSv algorithm for PZ csPCa whose performance was demonstrated in a single-center dataset. A McMv dataset was collected, and 262 PZ PCa lesions (9 centers, 2 vendors) were selected to identically develop a multi-center algorithm. The single-center algorithm was then applied to the multi-center dataset (single–multi-validation), and the McMv algorithm was applied to both the multi-center dataset (multi–multi-validation) and the previously used single-center dataset (multi–single-validation). The areas under the curve (AUCs) of the validations were compared using bootstrapping. Results Previously the single–single validation achieved an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.71–0.92), a significant performance reduction of 27.2% compared to the single–multi-validation AUC of 0.59 (95% CI 0.51–0.68). The new multi-center model achieved a multi–multi-validation AUC of 0.75 (95% CI 0.64–0.84). Compared to the multi–single-validation AUC of 0.66 (95% CI 0.56–0.75), the performance did not decrease significantly (p value: 0.114). Bootstrapped comparison showed similar single-center performances and a significantly different multi-center performance (p values: 0.03, 0.012). Conclusions A single-center trained radiomics-based bpMRI model does not generalize to multi-center data. Multi-center trained radiomics-based bpMRI models do generalize, have equal single-center performance and perform better on multi-center data.
On the basis of these observations, we should consider the potential for neutrophil-mediated low-grade damage to xenografts emerging as a significant problem when others have been circumvented.
Objectives To determine the value of a deep learning masked (DLM) auto-fixed volume of interest (VOI) segmentation method as an alternative to manual segmentation for radiomics-based diagnosis of clinically significant (CS) prostate cancer (PCa) on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI). Materials and methods This study included a retrospective multi-center dataset of 524 PCa lesions (of which 204 are CS PCa) on bpMRI. All lesions were both semi-automatically segmented with a DLM auto-fixed VOI method (averaging < 10 s per lesion) and manually segmented by an expert uroradiologist (averaging 5 min per lesion). The DLM auto-fixed VOI method uses a spherical VOI (with its center at the location of the lowest apparent diffusion coefficient of the prostate lesion as indicated with a single mouse click) from which non-prostate voxels are removed using a deep learning–based prostate segmentation algorithm. Thirteen different DLM auto-fixed VOI diameters (ranging from 6 to 30 mm) were explored. Extracted radiomics data were split into training and test sets (4:1 ratio). Performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Results In the test set, the area under the ROC curve (AUCs) of the DLM auto-fixed VOI method with a VOI diameter of 18 mm (0.76 [95% CI: 0.66–0.85]) was significantly higher (p = 0.0198) than that of the manual segmentation method (0.62 [95% CI: 0.52–0.73]). Conclusions A DLM auto-fixed VOI segmentation can provide a potentially more accurate radiomics diagnosis of CS PCa than expert manual segmentation while also reducing expert time investment by more than 97%. Key Points • Compared to traditional expert-based segmentation, a deep learning mask (DLM) auto-fixed VOI placement is more accurate at detecting CS PCa. • Compared to traditional expert-based segmentation, a DLM auto-fixed VOI placement is faster and can result in a 97% time reduction. • Applying deep learning to an auto-fixed VOI radiomics approach can be valuable.
Aim: To evaluate the albuminuria-lowering effect of dapagliflozin, exenatide, and the combination of dapagliflozin and exenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria.Methods: Participants with type 2 diabetes, an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of more than 30 ml/min/1.73m 2 and an urinary albumin: creatinine ratio (UACR) of more than 3.5 mg/mmol and 100 mg/mmol or less completed three 6-week treatment periods, during which dapagliflozin 10 mg/d, exenatide 2 mg/wk and both drugs combined were given in random order. The primary outcome was the percentage change in UACR. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure, HbA1c, body weight, extracellular volume, fractional lithium excretion and renal haemodynamic variables as determined by magnetic resonance imaging.Results: We enrolled 20 patients, who completed 53 treatment periods in total.Mean percentage change in UACR from baseline was -21.9% (95% CI: -34.8% to -6.4%) during dapagliflozin versus -7.7% (95% CI: -23.5% to 11.2%) during exenatide and -26.0% (95% CI: -38.4% to -11.0%) during dapagliflozin-exenatide treatment.No correlation was observed in albuminuria responses between the different treatments. Numerically greater reductions in systolic blood pressure, body weight and eGFR were observed during dapagliflozin-exenatide treatment compared with dapagliflozin or exenatide alone. Renal blood flow and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF) did not significantly change with either treatment regimen. However, all but four and two patients in the dapagliflozin and dapagliflozin-exenatide groups, respectively, showed reductions in ERPF. The filtration fraction did not change during treatment with dapagliflozin or exenatide, and decreased during dapagliflozin-exenatide treatment (-1.6% [95% CI: -3.2% to -0.01%]; P = .048).
Background Involved lateral lymph nodes (LLNs) have been associated with increased local recurrence (LR) and ipsi-lateral LR (LLR) rates. However, consensus regarding the indication and type of surgical treatment for suspicious LLNs is lacking. This study evaluated the surgical treatment of LLNs in an untrained setting at a national level. Methods Patients who underwent additional LLN surgery were selected from a national cross-sectional cohort study regarding patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery in 69 Dutch hospitals in 2016. LLN surgery consisted of either ‘node-picking’ (the removal of an individual LLN) or ‘partial regional node dissection’ (PRND; an incomplete resection of the LLN area). For all patients with primarily enlarged (≥7 mm) LLNs, those undergoing rectal surgery with an additional LLN procedure were compared to those undergoing only rectal resection. Results Out of 3057 patients, 64 underwent additional LLN surgery, with 4-year LR and LLR rates of 26% and 15%, respectively. Forty-eight patients (75%) had enlarged LLNs, with corresponding recurrence rates of 26% and 19%, respectively. Node-picking (n = 40) resulted in a 20% 4-year LLR, and a 14% LLR after PRND (n = 8; p = 0.677). Multivariable analysis of 158 patients with enlarged LLNs undergoing additional LLN surgery (n = 48) or rectal resection alone (n = 110) showed no significant association of LLN surgery with 4-year LR or LLR, but suggested higher recurrence risks after LLN surgery (LR: hazard ratio [HR] 1.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7–3.2, p = 0.264; LLR: HR 1.9, 95% CI 0.2–2.5, p = 0.874). Conclusion Evaluation of Dutch practice in 2016 revealed that approximately one-third of patients with primarily enlarged LLNs underwent surgical treatment, mostly consisting of node-picking. Recurrence rates were not significantly affected by LLN surgery, but did suggest worse outcomes. Outcomes of LLN surgery after adequate training requires further research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.