La Radiologia medica · 2025
Deep learning-based PSMA PET segmentation repeatability: A post-hoc analysis of a single-center, prospective, test-retest trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kendrick Jake, Francis Roslyn J, Hassan Ghulam Mubashar, Ong Jeremy S L, Jeraj Robert, Barry Nathaniel, Ebert Martin A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of this study was to quantify the subject-level test-retest repeatability of artificial intelligence (AI)-derived PSMA PET imaging biomarkers using a previously developed model. The secondary aim was to assess the performance of this segmentation model, which was trained on [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 PET scans, on [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET scans.
METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a prospective, single-center, test-retest trial. Seventeen patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) were randomised into groups, either receiving the same tracer ([68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [18F]F-PSMA-1007) for both scans (intra-tracer group, n = 9) or a different tracer (inter-tracer group, n = 8). Scans were delineated using a fully automated AI method and semi-automatically. The subject-level repeatability of four imaging biomarkers, including PSMA-positive tumour volume, was quantified.
RESULTS: Repeatability analysis demonstrated poorer repeatability for all biomarkers in the inter-tracer group. In the intra-tracer group, the AI-derived PSMA-positive tumour volume had a repeatability coefficient of 13.8% for higher volume disease patients (≥ median tumour volume). There was no significant difference in the per-scan lesion-level positive predictive value of the AI model between [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET scans (0.88, IQR 0.69-1.00 vs. 0.78, IQR 0.54-1.00, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: AI-based PSMA-positive tumour volume calculations have repeatability limits that are consistent with the use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA PET/CT (RECIP 1.0) criteria for higher volume disease patients when the same tracer is used. Substantially wider repeatability limits in the inter-tracer group provide evidence that response assessment should be conducted using the same radiotracer.
METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a prospective, single-center, test-retest trial. Seventeen patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) were randomised into groups, either receiving the same tracer ([68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 or [18F]F-PSMA-1007) for both scans (intra-tracer group, n = 9) or a different tracer (inter-tracer group, n = 8). Scans were delineated using a fully automated AI method and semi-automatically. The subject-level repeatability of four imaging biomarkers, including PSMA-positive tumour volume, was quantified.
RESULTS: Repeatability analysis demonstrated poorer repeatability for all biomarkers in the inter-tracer group. In the intra-tracer group, the AI-derived PSMA-positive tumour volume had a repeatability coefficient of 13.8% for higher volume disease patients (≥ median tumour volume). There was no significant difference in the per-scan lesion-level positive predictive value of the AI model between [68 Ga]Ga-PSMA-11 and [18F]F-PSMA-1007 PET scans (0.88, IQR 0.69-1.00 vs. 0.78, IQR 0.54-1.00, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: AI-based PSMA-positive tumour volume calculations have repeatability limits that are consistent with the use of the Response Evaluation Criteria in PSMA PET/CT (RECIP 1.0) criteria for higher volume disease patients when the same tracer is used. Substantially wider repeatability limits in the inter-tracer group provide evidence that response assessment should be conducted using the same radiotracer.