No abstract

No abstract

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) offers strong soft tissue contrast but suffers from long acquisition times and requires tedious annotation from radiologists. Traditionally, these challenges have been addressed separately with reconstruction and image analysis algorithms. To see if performance could be improved by treating both as end-to-end, we hosted the K2S challenge, in which challenge participants segmented knee bones and cartilage from 8× undersampled k-space. We curated the 300-patient K2S dataset of multicoil raw k-space and radiologist quality-checked segmentations. 87 teams registered for the challenge and there were 12 submissions, varying in methodologies from serial reconstruction and segmentation to end-to-end networks to another that eschewed a reconstruction algorithm altogether. Four teams produced strong submissions, with the winner having a weighted Dice Similarity Coefficient of 0.910 ± 0.021 across knee bones and cartilage. Interestingly, there was no correlation between reconstruction and segmentation metrics. Further analysis showed the top four submissions were suitable for downstream biomarker analysis, largely preserving cartilage thicknesses and key bone shape features with respect to ground truth. K2S thus showed the value in considering reconstruction and image analysis as end-to-end tasks, as this leaves room for optimization while more realistically reflecting the long-term use case of tools being developed by the MR community.

Background: Deep learning (DL)-based models have demonstrated an ability to automatically diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI scans and are regularly reported to approach expert performance. The aim of this work was to systematically review the literature comparing deep learning (DL) systems to radiologists in order to evaluate the comparative performance of current state-of-the-art deep learning models and radiologists. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Studies investigating DL models for diagnosing clinically significant (cs) PCa on MRI were included. The quality and risk of bias of each study were assessed using the checklist for AI in medical imaging (CLAIM) and QUADAS-2, respectively. Patient level and lesion-based diagnostic performance were separately evaluated by comparing the sensitivity achieved by DL and radiologists at an identical specificity and the false positives per patient, respectively. Results: The final selection consisted of eight studies with a combined 7337 patients. The median study quality with CLAIM was 74.1% (IQR: 70.6–77.6). DL achieved an identical patient-level performance to the radiologists for PI-RADS ≥ 3 (both 97.7%, SD = 2.1%). DL had a lower sensitivity for PI-RADS ≥ 4 (84.2% vs. 88.8%, p = 0.43). The sensitivity of DL for lesion localization was also between 2% and 12.5% lower than that of the radiologists. Conclusions: DL models for the diagnosis of csPCa on MRI appear to approach the performance of experts but currently have a lower sensitivity compared to experienced radiologists. There is a need for studies with larger datasets and for validation on external data.