Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Computer aided detection in prostate cancer diagnostics: A promising alternative to biopsy? A retrospective study from 104 lesions with histological ground truth

Fig 7

CAD performance is reliable for lesions larger than 1 ml.

(A) Counts of classified and non classified cores in relation to their volume. Volume distribution of all lesions (number, %): 0–0.5ml (51, 49.04), 0.5–1.0ml (38, 36.54) and larger than 1.0ml (15, 14.42). True positive (TP, blue) lesions include classified PCa, true negatives (TN, cyan) are the non classified benign cores, false positives (FP, yellow) are the classified benign cores and false negatives (FN, red) the non classified PCa. The CAD-sensitivity increases and the number of FN decreases towards larger lesion volumes: (sensitivity % / FNR %) 27.27/31.37 for 0–0.5ml lesions, 53.33/18.42 for 0.5–1.0ml lesions and 80.00/13.33% for lesions larger than 1.0ml. (B) MAI score with lesion volume. A strong trend for a positive correlation between lesion size and MAI-score was found for TP lesions (P 0.057, Pearson´s correlation) but not for any of the remaining categories (TN, FP and FN, P > 0.1, Pearson´s correlation). (C) Lesions smaller than 0.5 ml show the same malignancy incidence and comparable aggressiveness compared to larger lesions (Ci) Lesions smaller than 0.5 ml (number, %) benign (29, 56.86) malignant (22, 43.14), (Cii) Gleason histogram for malignant lesions smaller than 0.5 ml, (Ciii) Lesions larger than 0.5 ml (number, %) benign (28, 57.14) malignant (21, 42.86), (Civ) Gleason histogram for malignant lesions larger than 0.5 ml.

Fig 7

doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185995.g007