Page 20 - AIH-1-1

Artificial Intelligence in Health AI in prostate cancer detection

45. Yuan Y, Qin W, Buyyounouski M, et al., 2019, Prostate https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3701-8
cancer classification with multiparametric MRI transfer 56. Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al., 2016, PI-RADS
learning model. Med Phys, 46: 756–765.
prostate imaging-reporting and data system: 2015, version 2.
https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13367 Eur Urol, 69: 16–40.
46. Kwak JT, Sankineni S, Xu S, et al., 2016, Correlation of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.052
magnetic resonance imaging with digital histopathology in
prostate. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg, 11: 657–666. 57. Campanella G, Hanna MG, Geneslaw L, et al., 2019,
Clinical-grade computational pathology using weakly
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-015-1287-x supervised deep learning on whole slide images. Nat Med,
47. Ozer S, Langer DL, Liu X, et al., 2010, Supervised and 25: 1301–1309.
unsupervised methods for prostate cancer segmentation https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-019-0508-1
with multispectral MRI. Med Phys, 37: 1873–1883.
58. Matoso A, Epstein JI, 2019, Defining clinically significant
https://doi.org/10.1118/1.3359459 prostate cancer on the basis of pathological findings.
48. Lucas M, Jansen I, Savci-Heijink CD, et al., 2019, Deep Histopathology, 74: 135–145.
learning for automatic Gleason pattern classification for https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13712
grade group determination of prostate biopsies. Virchows
Arch, 475: 77–83. 59. Wason R, 2018, Deep learning: Evolution and expansion.
Cogn Syst Res, 52: 701–708.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02577-x
60. Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al., 2011, Is apparent diffusion
49. Tiwari P, Viswanath S, Kurhanewicz J, et al., 2012, coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate
Multimodal wavelet embedding representation for data cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images. Radiology,
combination (MaWERiC): Integrating magnetic resonance 258: 488–495.
imaging and spectroscopy for prostate cancer detection.
NMR Biomed, 25: 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10100667
https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1777 61. Song Y, Zhang YD, Yan X, et al., 2018, Computer‐aided
diagnosis of prostate cancer using a deep convolutional
50. Hjørland B, 2013, Citation analysis: A social and dynamic neural network from multiparametric MRI. J Magn Reson
approach to knowledge organization. Inform Process Manag, Imaging, 48: 1570–1577.
49: 1313–1325.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26047
51. Schelb P, Kohl S, Radtke JP, et al., 2019, Classification
of cancer at prostate MRI: Deep learning versus clinical 62. Artan Y, Haider MA, Langer DL, et al., 2010, Prostate cancer
PI-RADS assessment. Radiology, 293: 607–617. localization with multispectral MRI using cost-sensitive
support vector machines and conditional random fields.
https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190938 IEEE Trans Image Process, 19: 2444–2455.
52. Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al., 2016, The 2014 https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2010.2048612
International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP)
consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic 63. Freedman D, Radke RJ, Zhang T, et al., 2005, Model-based
carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol, 40: 244–252. segmentation of medical imagery by matching distributions.
IEEE Trans Med Imaging, 24: 281–292.
https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000530
htps://doi.org/10.1109/tmi.2004.841228
53. Fehr D, Veeraraghavan H, Wibmer A, et al., 2015, Automatic
classification of prostate cancer Gleason scores from 64. Zhan Y, Ou Y, Feldman M, et al., 2007, Registering histologic
multiparametric magnetic resonance images. Proc Natl Acad and MR images of prostate for image-based cancer detection.
Sci, 112: E6265–E6273. Acad Radiol, 14: 1367–1381.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505935112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2007.07.018
54. Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al., 2016, A 65. Alkadi R, Taher F, El-Baz A, et al., 2019, A deep learning-
contemporary prostate cancer grading system: A validated based approach for the detection and localization of prostate
alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol, 69: 428–435. cancer in T2 magnetic resonance images. J Digit Imaging,
32: 793–807.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.046
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-018-0160-1
55. Wibmer A, Hricak H, Gondo T, et al., 2015, Haralick texture
analysis of prostate MRI: utility for differentiating non- 66. Bernatz S, Ackermann J, Mandel P, et al., 2020, Comparison
cancerous prostate from prostate cancer and differentiating of machine learning algorithms to predict clinically
prostate cancers with different Gleason scores. Eur Radiol, significant prostate cancer of the peripheral zone with
25: 2840–2850. multiparametric MRI using clinical assessment categories

Volume 1 Issue 1 (2024) 14 https://doi.org/10.36922/aih.1958