• Author: Ulmert, David

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Kaboteh, Reza

    University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Author: Fox, Josef J.

    Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

  • Author: Savage, Caroline

    Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

  • Author: Evans, Michael J.

    Department of Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

  • Author: Lilja, Hans

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Abrahamsson, Per-Anders

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Björk, Thomas

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Gerdtsson, Axel

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Bjartell, Anders

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Gjertsson, Peter

    University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Author: Höglund, Peter

    Lund University, Sweden

  • Author: Lomsky, Milan

    University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Author: Ohlsson, Mattias

    Lund University, Denmark

  • Author: Richter, Jens

    EXINI Diagnostics AB, Sweden

  • Author: Sadik, May

    University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Author: Morris, Michael J.

    Department of Medicine (GU-Oncology), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

  • Author: Scher, Howard I.

    Department of Medicine (GU-Oncology), Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

  • Author: Sjöstrand, Karl

    DTU Data Analysis, Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark

  • Author: Yu, Alice

    Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

  • Author: Suurküla, Madis

    University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Author: Edenbrandt, Lars

    University of Gothenburg, Sweden

  • Author: Larson, Steven M.

    Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Centre, United States

View graph of relations

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 participantsWe 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. MeasurementsThe 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. ConclusionsAutomated 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.

We developed and evaluated the first unbiased, fully automated software system to systematically calculate skeletal tumour burden in patients with metastatic cancer in the bone, simplifying a valuable but cumbersome technology with shortcomings that had prevented its widespread clinical use.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEuropean Urology
Publication date2012
Volume62
Issue1
Pages78-84
ISSN0302-2838
DOIs
StatePublished
CitationsWeb of Science® Times Cited: 12

Keywords

  • Bone Scan Index, Image analysis, Radionuclide imaging, Bone metastases, Computer assisted diagnosis, Automated detection, Automated quantification, Risk prediction
Download as:
Download as PDF
Select render style:
APAAuthorCBEHarvardMLAStandardVancouverShortLong
PDF
Download as HTML
Select render style:
APAAuthorCBEHarvardMLAStandardVancouverShortLong
HTML
Download as Word
Select render style:
APAAuthorCBEHarvardMLAStandardVancouverShortLong
Word

ID: 8137396