Skip to main content
. 2024 Aug 24;16(17):2951. doi: 10.3390/cancers16172951

Table 3.

Analysis, validation, and results for csPCa prediction in the selected studies based on handcrafted radiomics as the feature extraction method.

Reference, Year Analysis Validation Sequence for the Best Model Best Radiomic Model [CI, 95%] a PI-RADS Cut-Off PI-RADS Model [CI, 95%] a
AUC Sensitivity Specificity AUC Sensitivity Specificity
Dominguez et al. 2023 [24] Index CV//Hold-out set ADC 0.81 [0.56–0.94]//0.71 NR NR NR 0.66 [0.57–0.74]//NR NR NR
Prata et al. 2023 [25] Index CV ADC 0.77 NR NR NR 0.68 NR NR
Jin et al. 2023 [26] Index Hold-out set//External (1 set) T2 + ADC + DWI (b2000) 0.80//0.80 0.80//0.73 0.65//0.92 NA NA NA NA
Jing et al. 2022 [29] Index Hold-out set//External (2 sets) T2 (prostate) + DWI b1500 (lesion) 0.96 [0.90, 1.00]//0.95 [0.87, 1.00]//0.94 [0.90, 0.99] b 0.95//0.98//0.86 b 0.94//0.86//0.91 b NR 0.84 [0.74, 0.95]//0.82 [0.72, 0.93]//0.80 [0.71, 0.88] 0.98//0.98//0.50 0.56//0.52//0.94
Lim et al. 2021 [33] All CV ADC 0.68 [0.65–0.72] NR NR NA NA NR NR
Hectors et al. 2021 [34] Index Hold-out set T2 0.76 [0.60–0.92] 0.75 0.8 NA NA NA NA
Castillo et al. 2021 [35] Index CV//External T2 + ADC + DWI (highest-b value) 0.72 [0.64, 0.79]//0.75 0.76 [0.66, 0.89]//0.88 0.55 [0.44, 0.66]//0.63 ≥3 0.50//0.44 (2 radiologists, External Validation) 0.76//0.88 0.25//0
Li et al. 2020 [36] Index Hold-out set T2 + ADC 0.98 [0.97–1.00] 0.95 0.87 NA NA NA NA

All = all lesions, AUC = area under the curve, CI = confidence interval, csPCa = clinically significant prostate cancer, CV = cross-validation, Index = index lesion, NA = not applicable, NR = not reported, PI-RADS = Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System. a Data are expressed in the corresponding metric and the CI, 95% for each validation method separated by//. If the CI is not included, it means that it was not reported in the study. b The combined model (radiomic model + PI-RADS) is included since there are no data for the radiomic model.