We evaluated the interpretation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate in routine clinical care. Diagnostic accuracy depends on the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score and the radiologist.

Purpose While multi‐parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows great promise in assisting with prostate cancer diagnosis and localization, subtle differences in appearance between cancer and normal tissue lead to many false positive and false negative interpretations by radiologists. We sought to automatically detect aggressive cancer (Gleason pattern ≥ 4) and indolent cancer (Gleason pattern 3) on a per‐pixel basis on MRI to facilitate the targeting of aggressive cancer during biopsy. Methods We created the Stanford Prostate Cancer Network (SPCNet), a convolutional neural network model, trained to distinguish between aggressive cancer, indolent cancer, and normal tissue on MRI. Ground truth cancer labels were obtained by registering MRI with whole‐mount digital histopathology images from patients who underwent radical prostatectomy. Before registration, these histopathology images were automatically annotated to show Gleason patterns on a per‐pixel basis. The model was trained on data from 78 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy and 24 patients without prostate cancer. The model was evaluated on a pixel and lesion level in 322 patients, including six patients with normal MRI and no cancer, 23 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy, and 293 patients who underwent biopsy. Moreover, we assessed the ability of our model to detect clinically significant cancer (lesions with an aggressive component) and compared it to the performance of radiologists. Results Our model detected clinically significant lesions with an area under the receiver operator characteristics curve of 0.75 for radical prostatectomy patients and 0.80 for biopsy patients. Moreover, the model detected up to 18% of lesions missed by radiologists, and overall had a sensitivity and specificity that approached that of radiologists in detecting clinically significant cancer. Conclusions Our SPCNet model accurately detected aggressive prostate cancer. Its performance approached that of radiologists, and it helped identify lesions otherwise missed by radiologists. Our model has the potential to assist physicians in specifically targeting the aggressive component of prostate cancers during biopsy or focal treatment.

Liver CT is useful for the detection and grading of esophageal varices. A diameter of 3 mm may be an appropriate screening threshold for large clinically significant varices.