Quantitative MRI biomarker for classification of clinically significant prostate cancer: Calibration for reproducibility across echo times

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of the present study is to develop a calibration method to account for differences in echo times (TE) and facilitate the use of restriction spectrum imaging restriction score (RSIrs) as a quantitative biomarker for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).MethodsThis study included 197 consecutive patients who underwent MRI and biopsy examination; 97 were diagnosed with csPCa (grade group ≥ 2). RSI data were acquired three times during the same session: twice at minimum TE ~75 ms and once at TE = 90 ms (TEmin1, TEmin2, and TE90, respectively). A linear regression model was determined to match the C‐maps of TE90 to the reference C‐maps of TEmin1 within the interval ranging from 95th to 99th percentile of signal intensity within the prostate. RSIrs comparisons were made at the 98th percentile within each patient's prostate.We compared RSIrs from calibrated TE90 (RSIrsTE90corr) and uncorrected TE90 (RSIrsTE90) to RSIrs from reference TEmin1 (RSIrsTEmin1) and repeated TEmin2 (RSIrsTEmin2). Calibration performance was evaluated with sensitivity, specificity and area under the ROC curve (AUC).ResultsScaling factors for C1, C2, C3, and C4 were estimated as 1.68, 1.33, 1.02, and 1.13, respectively. In non‐csPCa cases, the 98th percentile of RSIrsTEmin2 and RSIrsTEmin1 differed by 0.27 ± 0.86SI (mean ± standard deviation), whereas RSIrsTE90 differed from RSIrsTEmin1 by 1.82 ± 1.20SI. After calibration, this bias was reduced to ‐0.51 ± 1.21SI, representing a 72% reduction in absolute error. For patients with csPCa, the difference was 0.54 ± 1.98SI between RSIrsTEmin2 and RSIrsTEmin1 and 2.28 ± 2.06SI between RSIrsTE90 and RSIrsTEmin1. After calibration, the mean difference decreased to ‐1.03SI, a 55% reduction in absolute error. At the Youden index for patient‐level classification of csPCa (8.94SI), RSIrsTEmin1 has a sensitivity of 66% and a specificity of 72%.ConclusionsThe proposed linear calibration method produces similar quantitative biomarker values for acquisitions with different TE, reducing TE‐induced error by 72% and 55% for non‐csPCa and csPCa, respectively.