Prostate Age Gap (PAG): An MRI surrogate marker of aging for prostate cancer detection

TL;DR

This study introduces Prostate Age Gap (PAG), an MRI-derived surrogate marker that significantly predicts clinically significant prostate cancer, outperforming traditional risk factors like PSA and PI-RADS.

Contribution

The paper develops and validates a deep learning-based MRI marker, PAG, as a novel predictor for prostate cancer risk, demonstrating superior predictive performance.

Findings

PAG is strongly associated with clinically significant prostate cancer.

PAG outperforms PSA and PI-RADS in predictive accuracy.

Deep learning effectively estimates patient age from MRI slices.

Abstract

Background: Prostate cancer (PC) MRI-based risk calculators are commonly based on biological (e.g. PSA), MRI markers (e.g. volume), and patient age. Whilst patient age measures the amount of years an individual has existed, biological age (BA) might better reflect the physiology of an individual. However, surrogates from prostate MRI and linkage with clinically significant PC (csPC) remain to be explored. Purpose: To obtain and evaluate Prostate Age Gap (PAG) as an MRI marker tool for csPC risk. Study type: Retrospective. Population: A total of 7243 prostate MRI slices from 468 participants who had undergone prostate biopsies. A deep learning model was trained on 3223 MRI slices cropped around the gland from 81 low-grade PC (ncsPC, Gleason score <=6) and 131 negative cases and tested on the remaining 256 participants. Assessment: Chronological age was defined as the age of the participant at the time of the visit and used to train the deep learning model to predict the age of the patient. Following, we obtained PAG, defined as the model predicted age minus the patient's chronological age. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to estimate the association through odds ratio (OR) and predictive value of PAG and compared against PSA levels and PI-RADS>=3. Statistical tests: T-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Permutation test and ROC curve analysis. Results: The multivariate adjusted model showed a significant difference in the odds of clinically significant PC (csPC, Gleason score >=7) (OR =3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI):2.32-6.16, P <.001). PAG showed a better predictive ability when compared to PI-RADS>=3 and adjusted by other risk factors, including PSA levels: AUC =0.981 vs AUC =0.704, p<.001. Conclusion: PAG was significantly associated with the risk of clinically significant PC and outperformed other well-established PC risk factors.