Background There is little consensus on a standard approach to analysing bone scan images. The Bone Scan Index (BSI) is predictive of survival in patients with progressive prostate cancer (PCa), but the popularity of this metric is hampered by the tedium of the manual calculation. Objective Develop a fully automated method of quantifying the BSI and determining the clinical value of automated BSI measurements beyond conventional clinical and pathologic features. Design, setting, and participants We conditioned a computer-assisted diagnosis system identifying metastatic lesions on a bone scan to automatically compute BSI measurements. A training group of 795 bone scans was used in the conditioning process. Independent validation of the method used bone scans obtained ≤3 mo from diagnosis of 384 PCa cases in two large population-based cohorts. An experienced analyser (blinded to case identity, prior BSI, and outcome) scored the BSI measurements twice. We measured prediction of outcome using pretreatment Gleason score, clinical stage, and prostate-specific antigen with models that also incorporated either manual or automated BSI measurements. Measurements The agreement between methods was evaluated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Discrimination between prognostic models was assessed using the concordance index (C-index). Results and limitations Manual and automated BSI measurements were strongly correlated (ρ = 0.80), correlated more closely (ρ = 0.93) when excluding cases with BSI scores ≥10 (1.8%), and were independently associated with PCa death (p < 0.0001 for each) when added to the prediction model. Predictive accuracy of the base model (C-index: 0.768; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.702–0.837) increased to 0.794 (95% CI, 0.727–0.860) by adding manual BSI scoring, and increased to 0.825 (95% CI, 0.754–0.881) by adding automated BSI scoring to the base model. Conclusions Automated BSI scoring, with its 100% reproducibility, reduces turnaround time, eliminates operator-dependent subjectivity, and provides important clinical information comparable to that of manual BSI scoring.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is about to transform medical imaging. The Research Consortium for Medical Image Analysis (RECOMIA), a not-for-profit organisation, has developed an online platform to facilitate collaboration between medical researchers and AI researchers. The aim is to minimise the time and effort researchers need to spend on technical aspects, such as transfer, display, and annotation of images, as well as legal aspects, such as de-identification. The purpose of this article is to present the RECOMIA platform and its AI-based tools for organ segmentation in computed tomography (CT), which can be used for extraction of standardised uptake values from the corresponding positron emission tomography (PET) image. Results: The RECOMIA platform includes modules for (1) local de-identification of medical images, (2) secure transfer of images to the cloud-based platform, (3) display functions available using a standard web browser, (4) tools for manual annotation of organs or pathology in the images, (5) deep learning-based tools for organ segmentation or other customised analyses, (6) tools for quantification of segmented volumes, and (7) an export function for the quantitative results. The AI-based tool for organ segmentation in CT currently handles 100 organs (77 bones and 23 soft tissue organs). The segmentation is based on two convolutional neural networks (CNNs): one network to handle organs with multiple similar instances, such as vertebrae and ribs, and one network for all other organs. The CNNs have been trained using CT studies from 339 patients. Experienced radiologists annotated organs in the CT studies. The performance of the segmentation tool, measured as mean Dice index on a manually annotated test set, with 10 representative organs, was 0.93 for all foreground voxels, and the mean Dice index over the organs were 0.86 (0.82 for the soft tissue organs and 0.90 for the bones). Conclusion: The paper presents a platform that provides deep learning-based tools that can perform basic organ segmentations in CT, which can then be used to automatically obtain the different measurement in the corresponding PET image. The RECOMIA platform is available on request at www.recomia.org for research purposes.

The aim of this study was to develop a deep learning-based method for segmentation of bones in CT scans and test its accuracy compared to manual delineation, as a first step in the creation of an automated PET/ CT-based method for quantifying skeletal tumour burden. Methods: Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) were trained to segment 49 bones using manual segmentations from 100 CT scans. After training, the CNN-based segmentation method was tested on 46 patients with prostate cancer, who had undergone 18 F-choline-PET/CT and 18 F-NaF PET/CT less than three weeks apart. Bone volumes were calculated from the segmentations. The network's performance was compared with manual segmentations of five bones made by an experienced physician. Accuracy of the spatial overlap between automated CNN-based and manual segmentations of these five bones was assessed using the Sørensen-Dice index (SDI). Reproducibility was evaluated applying the Bland-Altman method. Results: The median (SD) volumes of the five selected bones were by CNN and manual segmentation: Th7 41 (3.8) and 36 (5.1), L3 76 (13) and 75 (9.2), sacrum 284 (40) and 283 (26), 7th rib 33 (3.9) and 31 (4.8), sternum 80 (11) and 72 (9.2), respectively. Median SDIs were 0.86 (Th7), 0.85 (L3), 0.88 (sacrum), 0.84 (7th rib) and 0.83 (sternum). The intraobserver volume difference was less with CNN-based than manual approach: Th7 2% and 14%, L3 7% and 8%, sacrum 1% and 3%, 7th rib 1% and 6%, sternum 3% and 5%, respectively. The average volume difference measured as ratio volume difference/mean volume between the two CNN-based segmentations was 5-6% for the vertebral column and ribs and ≤3% for other bones. Conclusion:The new deep learning-based method for automated segmentation of bones in CT scans provided highly accurate bone volumes in a fast and automated way and, thus, appears to be a valuable first step in the development of a clinical useful processing procedure providing reliable skeletal segmentation as a key part of quantification of skeletal metastases.

BSI and BSI changes over time were independently associated with OS in men with mCRPC. A delay in objective radiographic bone scan progression with TASQ is suggested; prospective evaluation of BSI progression and response criteria in phase 3 trials of men with mCRPC is warranted.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to explore the prognostic value of the Bone Scan Index (BSI) obtained at the time of diagnosis in a group of high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving primary hormonal therapy.MethodsThis was a retrospective study based on 130 consecutive prostate cancer patients at high risk, based on clinical stage (T2c/T3/T4), Gleason score (8 to 10) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) (> 20 ng/mL), who had undergone whole-body bone scans < 3 months after diagnosis and who received primary hormonal therapy. BSI was calculated using an automated method. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to investigate the association between clinical stage, Gleason score, PSA, BSI and survival. Discrimination between prognostic models was assessed using the concordance index (C-index).ResultsIn a multivariate analysis, Gleason score (p = 0.01) and BSI (p < 0.001) were associated with survival, but clinical stage (p = 0.29) and PSA (p = 0.57) were not prognostic. The C-index increased from 0.66 to 0.71 when adding BSI to a model including clinical stage, Gleason score and PSA. The 5-year probability of survival was 55% for patients without metastases, 42% for patients with BSI < 1, 31% for patients with BSI = 1 to 5, and 0% for patients with BSI > 5.ConclusionsBSI can be used as a complement to PSA to risk-stratify high-risk prostate cancer patients at the time of diagnosis. This imaging biomarker, reflecting the extent of metastatic disease, can be of value both in clinical trials and in patient management when deciding on treatment.