• Author: Ulmert, David

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Skåne University Hospita

  • Author: Kaboteh, Reza

    Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University

  • Author: Fox, Josef J.

    Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre

  • Author: Savage, Caroline

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

  • Author: Evans, Michael J.

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

  • Author: Lilja, Hans

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, Skåne University Hospita

  • Author: Abrahamsson, Per-Anders

    Department of Urology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital

  • Author: Björk, Thomas

    Department of Urology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital

  • Author: Gerdtsson, Axel

    Department of Urology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital

  • Author: Bjartell, Anders

    Department of Urology, Lund University, Skåne University Hospital

  • Author: Gjertsson, Peter

    Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University

  • Author: Höglund, Peter

    Competence Centre for Clinical Research, Lund University Hospital

  • Author: Lomsky, Milan

    Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University

  • Author: Ohlsson, Mattias

    Department of Theoretical Physics, Lund University

  • Author: Richter, Jens

    EXINI Diagnostics AB

  • Author: Sadik, May

    Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy

  • Author: Morris, Michael J.

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

  • Author: Scher, Howard I.

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

  • Author: Sjöstrand, Karl

    DTU Data Analysis, Department of Informatics and Mathematical Modeling, Technical University of Denmark, Richard Petersens Plads, DK-2800, Kongens Lyngby

  • Author: Yu, Alice

    Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre

  • Author: Suurküla, Madis

    Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University

  • Author: Edenbrandt, Lars

    Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University

  • Author: Larson, Steven M.

    Department of Nuclear Medicine, Memorial Sloan- Kettering Cancer Centre

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
Journal number1
Pages78-84
ISSN0302-2838
DOIs
StatePublished
CitationsWeb of Science® Times Cited: 4

Keywords

  • Bone Scan Index, Image analysis, Radionuclide imaging, Bone metastases, Computer assisted diagnosis, Automated detection, Automated quantification, Risk prediction

ID: 8137396