Artificial Intelligence Compared to Radiologists for the Initial Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies

From molecular mechanisms of prostate cancer to translational applications: based on multi-omics fusion analysis and intelligent medicine

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men worldwide and has a high mortality rate. The complex and heterogeneous development of prostate cancer has become a core obstacle in the treatment of prostate cancer. Simultaneously, the issues of overtreatment in early-stage diagnosis, oligometastasis and dormant tumor recognition, as well as personalized drug utilization, are also specific concerns that require attention in the clinical management of prostate cancer. Some typical genetic mutations have been proved to be associated with prostate cancer's initiation and progression. However, single-omic studies usually are not able to explain the causal relationship between molecular alterations and clinical phenotypes. Exploration from a systems genetics perspective is also lacking in this field, that is, the impact of gene network, the environmental factors, and even lifestyle behaviors on disease progression. At the meantime, current trend emphasizes the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning techniques to process extensive multidimensional data, including multi-omics. These technologies unveil the potential patterns, correlations, and insights related to diseases, thereby aiding the interpretable clinical decision making and applications, namely intelligent medicine. Therefore, there is a pressing need to integrate multidimensional data for identification of molecular subtypes, prediction of cancer progression and aggressiveness, along with perosonalized treatment performing. In this review, we systematically elaborated the landscape from molecular mechanism discovery of prostate cancer to clinical translational applications. We discussed the molecular profiles and clinical manifestations of prostate cancer heterogeneity, the identification of different states of prostate cancer, as well as corresponding precision medicine practices. Taking multi-omics fusion, systems genetics, and intelligence medicine as the main perspectives, the current research results and knowledge-driven research path of prostate cancer were summarized.

Multimodal AI Combining Clinical and Imaging Inputs Improves Prostate Cancer Detection

OBJECTIVES

Deep learning (DL) studies for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) often overlook potentially relevant clinical parameters such as prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and age. This study explored the integration of clinical parameters and MRI-based DL to enhance diagnostic accuracy for csPCa on MRI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 932 biparametric prostate MRI examinations performed for suspected csPCa (ISUP ≥2) at 2 institutions. Each MRI scan was automatically analyzed by a previously developed DL model to detect and segment csPCa lesions. Three sets of features were extracted: DL lesion suspicion levels, clinical parameters (prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, age), and MRI-based lesion volumes for all DL-detected lesions. Six multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) classifiers were trained for each combination of feature sets, employing both early (feature-level) and late (decision-level) information fusion methods. The diagnostic performance of each model was tested internally on 20% of center 1 data and externally on center 2 data (n = 529). Receiver operating characteristic comparisons determined the optimal feature combination and information fusion method and assessed the benefit of multimodal versus unimodal analysis. The optimal model performance was compared with a radiologist using PI-RADS.

RESULTS

Internally, the multimodal AI integrating DL suspicion levels with clinical features via early fusion achieved the highest performance. Externally, it surpassed baselines using clinical parameters (0.77 vs 0.67 area under the curve [AUC], P < 0.001) and DL suspicion levels alone (AUC: 0.77 vs 0.70, P = 0.006). Early fusion outperformed late fusion in external data (0.77 vs 0.73 AUC, P = 0.005). No significant performance gaps were observed between multimodal AI and radiologist assessments (internal: 0.87 vs 0.88 AUC; external: 0.77 vs 0.75 AUC, both P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal AI (combining DL suspicion levels and clinical parameters) outperforms clinical and MRI-only AI for csPCa detection. Early information fusion enhanced AI robustness in our multicenter setting. Incorporating lesion volumes did not enhance diagnostic efficacy.

Perspectives on technology: Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) interobserver variability

OBJECTIVES

To explore the topic of Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) interobserver variability, including a discussion of major sources, mitigation approaches, and future directions.

METHODS

A narrative review of PI-RADS interobserver variability.

RESULTS

PI-RADS was developed in 2012 to set technical standards for prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reduce interobserver variability at interpretation, and improve diagnostic accuracy in the MRI-directed diagnostic pathway for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer. While PI-RADS has been validated in selected research cohorts with prostate cancer imaging experts, subsequent prospective studies in routine clinical practice demonstrate wide variability in diagnostic performance. Radiologist and biopsy operator experience are the most important contributing drivers of high-quality care among multiple interrelated factors including variability in MRI hardware and technique, image quality, and population and patient-specific factors such as prostate cancer disease prevalence. Iterative improvements in PI-RADS have helped flatten the curve for novice readers and reduce variability. Innovations in image quality reporting, administrative and organisational workflows, and artificial intelligence hold promise in improving variability even further.

CONCLUSION

Continued research into PI-RADS is needed to facilitate benchmark creation, reader certification, and independent accreditation, which are systems-level interventions needed to uphold and maintain high-quality prostate MRI across entire populations.

Performance of a Region of Interest-based Algorithm in Diagnosing International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group ≥2 Prostate Cancer on the MRI-FIRST Database-CAD-FIRST Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) shows high sensitivity for International Society of Urological Pathology grade group (GG) ≥2 cancers. Many artificial intelligence algorithms have shown promising results in diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI. To assess a region-of-interest-based machine-learning algorithm aimed at characterising GG ≥2 prostate cancer on multiparametric MRI.

METHODS

The lesions targeted at biopsy in the MRI-FIRST dataset were retrospectively delineated and assessed using a previously developed algorithm. The Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADSv2) score assigned prospectively before biopsy and the algorithm score calculated retrospectively in the regions of interest were compared for diagnosing GG ≥2 cancer, using the areas under the curve (AUCs), and sensitivities and specificities calculated with predefined thresholds (PIRADSv2 scores ≥3 and ≥4; algorithm scores yielding 90% sensitivity in the training database). Ten predefined biopsy strategies were assessed retrospectively.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

After excluding 19 patients, we analysed 232 patients imaged on 16 different scanners; 85 had GG ≥2 cancer at biopsy. At patient level, AUCs of the algorithm and PI-RADSv2 were 77% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70-82) and 80% (CI: 74-85; p = 0.36), respectively. The algorithm's sensitivity and specificity were 86% (CI: 76-93) and 65% (CI: 54-73), respectively. PI-RADSv2 sensitivities and specificities were 95% (CI: 89-100) and 38% (CI: 26-47), and 89% (CI: 79-96) and 47% (CI: 35-57) for thresholds of ≥3 and ≥4, respectively. Using the PI-RADSv2 score to trigger a biopsy would have avoided 26-34% of biopsies while missing 5-11% of GG ≥2 cancers. Combining prostate-specific antigen density, the PI-RADSv2 and algorithm's scores would have avoided 44-47% of biopsies while missing 6-9% of GG ≥2 cancers. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study and a lack of PI-RADS version 2.1 assessment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The algorithm provided robust results in the multicentre multiscanner MRI-FIRST database and could help select patients for biopsy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

An artificial intelligence-based algorithm aimed at diagnosing aggressive cancers on prostate magnetic resonance imaging showed results similar to expert human assessment in a prospectively acquired multicentre test database.

Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer: Expanding the Role of MR Imaging and the Use of PRECISE Criteria

Multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging has had an expanding role in active surveillance (AS) for prostate cancer. It can improve the accuracy of prostate biopsies, assist in patient selection, and help monitor cancer progression. The PRECISE recommendations standardize reporting of serial MR imaging scans during AS. We summarize the evidence on MR imaging-led AS and provide a clinical primer to help report using the PRECISE criteria. Some limitations to both serial imaging and the PRECISE recommendations must be considered as we move toward a more individualized risk-stratified approach to AS.

Systematic reviews of machine learning in healthcare: a literature review

INTRODUCTION

The increasing availability of data and computing power has made machine learning (ML) a viable approach to faster, more efficient healthcare delivery.

METHODS

A systematic literature review (SLR) of published SLRs evaluating ML applications in healthcare settings published between1 January 2010 and 27 March 2023 was conducted.

RESULTS

In total 220 SLRs covering 10,462 ML algorithms were reviewed. The main application of AI in medicine related to the clinical prediction and disease prognosis in oncology and neurology with the use of imaging data. Accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity were provided in 56%, 28%, and 25% SLRs respectively. Internal and external validation was reported in 53% and less than 1% of the cases respectively. The most common modeling approach was neural networks (2,454 ML algorithms), followed by support vector machine and random forest/decision trees (1,578 and 1,522 ML algorithms, respectively).

EXPERT OPINION

The review indicated considerable reporting gaps in terms of the ML's performance, both internal and external validation. Greater accessibility to healthcare data for developers can ensure the faster adoption of ML algorithms into clinical practice.

Transfer learning with CNNs for efficient prostate cancer and BPH detection in transrectal ultrasound images

Early detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is crucial for maintaining the health and well-being of aging male populations. This study aims to evaluate the performance of transfer learning with convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for efficient classification of PCa and BPH in transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images. A retrospective experimental design was employed in this study, with 1380 TRUS images for PCa and 1530 for BPH. Seven state-of-the-art deep learning (DL) methods were employed as classifiers with transfer learning applied to popular CNN architectures. Performance indices, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Kappa value, and Hindex (Youden's index), were used to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the CNN methods. The CNN methods with transfer learning demonstrated a high classification performance for TRUS images, with all accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, PPV, NPV, Kappa, and Hindex values surpassing 0.9400. The optimal accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity reached 0.9987, 0.9980, and 0.9980, respectively, as evaluated using twofold cross-validation. The investigated CNN methods with transfer learning showcased their efficiency and ability for the classification of PCa and BPH in TRUS images. Notably, the EfficientNetV2 with transfer learning displayed a high degree of effectiveness in distinguishing between PCa and BPH, making it a promising tool for future diagnostic applications.

Zone-specific computer-aided diagnosis system aimed at characterizing ISUP ≥ 2 prostate cancers on multiparametric magnetic resonance images: evaluation in a cohort of patients on active surveillance

PURPOSE

To assess a region-of-interest-based computer-assisted diagnosis system (CAD) in characterizing aggressive prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) from patients under active surveillance (AS).

METHODS

A prospective biopsy database was retrospectively searched for patients under AS who underwent MRI and subsequent biopsy at our institution. MRI lesions targeted at baseline biopsy were retrospectively delineated to calculate the CAD score that was compared to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2 score assigned at baseline biopsy.

RESULTS

186 patients were selected. At baseline biopsy, 51 and 15 patients had International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade ≥ 2 and ≥ 3 cancer respectively. The CAD score had significantly higher specificity for ISUP ≥ 2 cancers (60% [95% confidence interval (CI): 51-68]) than the PI-RADS score (≥ 3 dichotomization: 24% [CI: 17-33], p = 0.0003; ≥ 4 dichotomization: 32% [CI: 24-40], p = 0.0003). It had significantly lower sensitivity than the PI-RADS ≥ 3 dichotomization (85% [CI: 74-92] versus 98% [CI: 91-100], p = 0.015) but not than the PI-RADS ≥ 4 dichotomization (94% [CI:85-98], p = 0.104). Combining CAD findings and PSA density could have avoided 47/184 (26%) baseline biopsies, while missing 3/51 (6%) ISUP 2 and no ISUP ≥ 3 cancers. Patients with baseline negative CAD findings and PSAd < 0.15 ng/mL2 who stayed on AS after baseline biopsy had a 9% (4/44) risk of being diagnosed with ISUP ≥ 2 cancer during a median follow-up of 41 months, as opposed to 24% (18/74) for the others.

CONCLUSION

The CAD could help define AS patients with low risk of aggressive cancer at baseline assessment and during subsequent follow-up.

AI-predicted mpMRI image features for the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility of using mpMRI image features predicted by AI algorithms in the prediction of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study analyzed patients who underwent prostate mpMRI and radical prostatectomy (RP) at the Affiliated Hospital of Jiaxing University between November 2017 and December 2022. The clinical data collected included age, serum prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and biopsy pathology. The reference standard was the prostatectomy pathology, and a Gleason Score (GS) of 3 + 3 = 6 was considered non-clinically significant prostate cancer (non-csPCa), while a GS ≥ 3 + 4 was considered csPCa. A pre-trained AI algorithm was used to extract the lesion on mpMRI, and the image features of the lesion and the prostate gland were analyzed. Two logistic regression models were developed to predict csPCa: an MR model and a combined model. The MR model used age, PSA, PSA density (PSAD), and the AI-predicted MR image features as predictor variables. The combined model used biopsy pathology and the aforementioned variables as predictor variables. The model's effectiveness was evaluated by comparing it to biopsy pathology using the area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operation characteristic (ROC) analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 315 eligible patients were enrolled with an average age of 70.8 ± 5.9. Based on RP pathology, 18 had non-csPCa, and 297 had csPCa. PSA, PSAD, biopsy pathology, and ADC value of the prostate outside the lesion (ADCprostate) varied significantly across different ISUP grade groups of RP pathology (P < 0.001). Other clinical variables and image features did not vary significantly across different ISUP grade groups (P > 0.05). The MR model included PSAD, the ratio of ADC value between the lesion and the prostate outside the lesion (ADClesion/prostate), the signal intensity ratio of DWI between the lesion and the prostate outside the lesion (DWIlesion/prostate), and the ratio of DWIlesion/prostate to ADClesion/prostate. The combined model included biopsy pathology, ADClesion/prostate, mean signal intensity of the lesion on DWI (DWIlesion), DWI signal intensity of the prostate outside the lesion (DWIprostate), and signal intensity ratio of DWI between the lesion and the prostate outside the lesion (DWIlesion/prostate). The AUC of the MR model (0.830, 95% CI 0.743, 0.916) was not significantly different from that of biopsy pathology (0.820, 95% CI 0.728, 0.912, P = 0.884). The AUC of the combined model (0.915, 95% CI 0.849, 0.980) was higher than that of the biopsy pathology (P = 0.042) and MR model (P = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

The aggressiveness of prostate cancer can be effectively predicted using AI-extracted image features from mpMRI images, similar to biopsy pathology. The prediction accuracy was improved by combining the AI-extracted mpMRI image features with biopsy pathology, surpassing the performance of biopsy pathology alone.

Evaluation of a Deep Learning-based Algorithm for Post-Radiotherapy Prostate Cancer Local Recurrence Detection Using Biparametric MRI

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a biparametric MRI (bpMRI)-based artificial intelligence (AI) model for the detection of local prostate cancer (PCa) recurrence in patients with radiotherapy history.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included post-radiotherapy patients undergoing multiparametric MRI and subsequent MRI/US fusion-guided and/or systematic biopsy. Histopathology results were used as ground truth. The recurrent cancer detection sensitivity of a bpMRI-based AI model, which was developed on a large dataset to primarily identify lesions in treatment-naïve patients, was compared to a prospective radiologist assessment using the Wald test. Subanalysis was conducted on patients stratified by the treatment modality (external beam radiation treatment [EBRT] and brachytherapy) and the prostate volume quartiles.

RESULTS

Of the 62 patients included (median age = 70 years; median PSA = 3.51 ng/ml; median prostate volume = 27.55 ml), 56 recurrent PCa foci were identified within 46 patients. The AI model detected 40 lesions in 35 patients. The AI model performance was lower than the prospective radiology interpretation (Rad) on a patient-(AI: 76.1% vs. Rad: 91.3%, p = 0.02) and lesion-level (AI: 71.4% vs. Rad: 87.5%, p = 0.01). The mean number of false positives per patient was 0.35 (range: 0-2). The AI model performance was higher in EBRT group both on patient-level (EBRT: 81.5% [22/27] vs. brachytherapy: 68.4% [13/19]) and lesion-level (EBRT: 79.4% [27/34] vs. brachytherapy: 59.1% [13/22]). In patients with gland volumes >34 ml (n = 25), detection sensitivities were 100% (11/11) and 94.1% (16/17) on patient- and lesion-level, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The reported bpMRI-based AI model detected the majority of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiotherapy. Further testing including external validation of this model is warranted prior to clinical implementation.

Use of artificial intelligence in the detection of primary prostate cancer in multiparametric MRI with its clinical outcomes: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) has transformed the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway, allowing for improved risk stratification and more targeted subsequent management. However, concerns exist over the interobserver variability of images and the applicability of this model long term, especially considering the current shortage of radiologists and the growing ageing population. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being integrated into clinical practice to support diagnostic and therapeutic imaging analysis to overcome these concerns. The following report details a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the accuracy of AI in predicting primary prostate cancer on mpMRI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic search will be performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. All relevant articles published between January 2016 and February 2023 will be eligible for inclusion. To be included, articles must use AI to study MRI prostate images to detect prostate cancer. All included articles will be in full-text, reporting original data and written in English. The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. The QUADAS-2 score will assess the quality and risk of bias across selected studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at both national and international conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021293745.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Optical Imaging for Cancer Theranostics

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) to assist biomedical imaging have demonstrated its high accuracy and high efficiency in medical decision-making for individualized cancer medicine. In particular, optical imaging methods are able to visualize both the structural and functional information of tumors tissues with high contrast, low cost, and noninvasive property. However, no systematic work has been performed to inspect the recent advances on AI-aided optical imaging for cancer theranostics. In this review, we demonstrated how AI can guide optical imaging methods to improve the accuracy on tumor detection, automated analysis and prediction of its histopathological section, its monitoring during treatment, and its prognosis by using computer vision, deep learning and natural language processing. By contrast, the optical imaging techniques involved mainly consisted of various tomography and microscopy imaging methods such as optical endoscopy imaging, optical coherence tomography, photoacoustic imaging, diffuse optical tomography, optical microscopy imaging, Raman imaging, and fluorescent imaging. Meanwhile, existing problems, possible challenges and future prospects for AI-aided optical imaging protocol for cancer theranostics were also discussed. It is expected that the present work can open a new avenue for precision oncology by using AI and optical imaging tools.

PI-RADS: Where Next?

Prostate MRI plays an important role in the clinical management of localized prostate cancer, mainly assisting in biopsy decisions and guiding biopsy procedures. The Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) has been available to radiologists since 2012, with the most up-to-date and actively used version being PI-RADS version 2.1. This review article discusses the current use of PI-RADS, including its limitations and controversies, and summarizes research that aims to improve future iterations of this system.

Artificial Intelligence and Cancer Control: Toward Prioritizing Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) in Emerging Decision Support Technologies

PURPOSE FOR REVIEW

This perspective piece has two goals: first, to describe issues related to artificial intelligence-based applications for cancer control as they may impact health inequities or disparities; and second, to report on a review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of artificial intelligence-based tools for cancer control to ascertain the extent to which discussions of justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, or health disparities manifest in syntheses of the field's best evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

We found that, while a significant proportion of existing syntheses of research on AI-based tools in cancer control use formal bias assessment tools, the fairness or equitability of models is not yet systematically analyzable across studies. Issues related to real-world use of AI-based tools for cancer control, such as workflow considerations, measures of usability and acceptance, or tool architecture, are more visible in the literature, but still addressed only in a minority of reviews. Artificial intelligence is poised to bring significant benefits to a wide range of applications in cancer control, but more thorough and standardized evaluations and reporting of model fairness are required to build the evidence base for AI-based tool design for cancer and to ensure that these emerging technologies promote equitable healthcare.

The Low Rate of Adherence to Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Criteria Among Published Prostate MRI Artificial Intelligence Algorithms

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rigor, generalizability, and reproducibility of published classification and detection artificial intelligence (AI) models for prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) guidelines, a 42-item checklist that is considered a measure of best practice for presenting and reviewing medical imaging AI research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review searched English literature for studies proposing PCa AI detection and classification models on MRI. Each study was evaluated with the CLAIM checklist. The additional outcomes for which data were sought included measures of AI model performance (eg, area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, free-response operating characteristic curves), training and validation and testing group sample size, AI approach, detection versus classification AI, public data set utilization, MRI sequences used, and definition of gold standard for ground truth. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment was used to stratify studies into quartiles. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for pair-wise comparisons.

RESULTS

In all, 75 studies were identified, and 53 studies qualified for analysis. The original CLAIM items that most studies did not fulfill includes item 12 (77% no): de-identification methods; item 13 (68% no): handling missing data; item 15 (47% no): rationale for choosing ground truth reference standard; item 18 (55% no): measurements of inter- and intrareader variability; item 31 (60% no): inclusion of validated interpretability maps; item 37 (92% no): inclusion of failure analysis to elucidate AI model weaknesses. An AUC score versus percentage CLAIM fulfillment quartile revealed a significant difference of the mean AUC scores between quartile 1 versus quartile 2 (0.78 versus 0.86, P = .034) and quartile 1 versus quartile 4 (0.78 versus 0.89, P = .003) scores. Based on additional information and outcome metrics gathered in this study, additional measures of best practice are defined. These new items include disclosure of public dataset usage, ground truth definition in comparison to other referenced works in the defined task, and sample size power calculation.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of AI studies do not fulfill key items in CLAIM guidelines within their methods and results sections. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment is weakly associated with improved AI model performance. Additions or supplementations to CLAIM are recommended to improve publishing standards and aid reviewers in determining study rigor.

Is Artificial Intelligence Replacing Our Radiology Stars? Not Yet!

Artificial intelligence (AI) is here to stay and will change health care as we know it. The availability of big data and the increasing numbers of AI algorithms approved by the US Food and Drug Administration together will help in improving the quality of care for patients and in overcoming human fatigue barriers. In oncology practice, patients and providers rely on the interpretation of radiologists when making clinical decisions; however, there is considerable variability among readers, and in particular for prostate imaging. AI represents an emerging solution to this problem, for which it can provide a much-needed form of standardization. The diagnostic performance of AI alone in comparison to a combination of an AI framework and radiologist assessment for evaluation of prostate imaging has yet to be explored. Here, we compare the performance of radiologists alone versus a combination of radiologists aided by a modern computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) AI system. We show that the radiologist-CAD combination demonstrates superior sensitivity and specificity in comparison to both radiologists alone and AI alone. Our findings demonstrate that a radiologist + AI combination could perform best for detection of prostate cancer lesions. A hybrid technology-human system could leverage the benefits of AI in improving radiologist performance while also reducing physician workload, minimizing burnout, and enhancing the quality of patient care.

Patient summary

Our report demonstrates the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) for improving the interpretation of prostate scans. A combination of AI and evaluation by a radiologist has the best performance in determining the severity of prostate cancer. A hybrid system that uses both AI and radiologists could maximize the quality of care for patients while reducing physician workload and burnout.

Artificial intelligence algorithms aimed at characterizing or detecting prostate cancer on MRI: How accurate are they when tested on independent cohorts? – A systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature on the diagnostic performance, in independent test cohorts, of artificial intelligence (AI)-based algorithms aimed at characterizing/detecting prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2018 and September 2022, using a histological reference standard, and assessing prostate cancer characterization/detection by AI-based MRI algorithms in test cohorts composed of more than 40 patients and with at least one of the following independency criteria as compared to the training cohort: different institution, different population type, different MRI vendor, different magnetic field strength or strict temporal splitting.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies were selected. The overall risk of bias was low. However, 23 studies did not use predefined diagnostic thresholds, which may have optimistically biased the results. Test cohorts fulfilled one to three of the five independency criteria. The diagnostic performance of the algorithms used as standalones was good, challenging that of human reading. In the 12 studies with predefined diagnostic thresholds, radiomics-based computer-aided diagnosis systems (assessing regions-of-interest drawn by the radiologist) tended to provide more robust results than deep learning-based computer-aided detection systems (providing probability maps). Two of the six studies comparing unassisted and assisted reading showed significant improvement due to the algorithm, mostly by reducing false positive findings.

CONCLUSION

Prostate MRI AI-based algorithms showed promising results, especially for the relatively simple task of characterizing predefined lesions. The best management of discrepancies between human reading and algorithm findings still needs to be defined.

Comparative Performance of Deep Learning and Radiologists for the Diagnosis and Localization of Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer at MRI: A Systematic Review

Background: Deep learning (DL)-based models have demonstrated an ability to automatically diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI scans and are regularly reported to approach expert performance. The aim of this work was to systematically review the literature comparing deep learning (DL) systems to radiologists in order to evaluate the comparative performance of current state-of-the-art deep learning models and radiologists. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Studies investigating DL models for diagnosing clinically significant (cs) PCa on MRI were included. The quality and risk of bias of each study were assessed using the checklist for AI in medical imaging (CLAIM) and QUADAS-2, respectively. Patient level and lesion-based diagnostic performance were separately evaluated by comparing the sensitivity achieved by DL and radiologists at an identical specificity and the false positives per patient, respectively. Results: The final selection consisted of eight studies with a combined 7337 patients. The median study quality with CLAIM was 74.1% (IQR: 70.6–77.6). DL achieved an identical patient-level performance to the radiologists for PI-RADS ≥ 3 (both 97.7%, SD = 2.1%). DL had a lower sensitivity for PI-RADS ≥ 4 (84.2% vs. 88.8%, p = 0.43). The sensitivity of DL for lesion localization was also between 2% and 12.5% lower than that of the radiologists. Conclusions: DL models for the diagnosis of csPCa on MRI appear to approach the performance of experts but currently have a lower sensitivity compared to experienced radiologists. There is a need for studies with larger datasets and for validation on external data.

Tasks for artificial intelligence in prostate MRI

The advent of precision medicine, increasing clinical needs, and imaging availability among many other factors in the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway has engendered the utilization of artificial intelligence (AI). AI carries a vast number of potential applications in every step of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway from classifying/improving prostate multiparametric magnetic resonance image quality, prostate segmentation, anatomically segmenting cancer suspicious foci, detecting and differentiating clinically insignificant cancers from clinically significant cancers on a voxel-level, and classifying entire lesions into Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System categories/Gleason scores. Multiple studies in all these areas have shown many promising results approximating accuracies of radiologists. Despite this flourishing research, more prospective multicenter studies are needed to uncover the full impact and utility of AI on improving radiologist performance and clinical management of prostate cancer. In this narrative review, we aim to introduce emerging medical imaging AI paper quality metrics such as the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) and Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI), dive into some of the top AI models for segmentation, detection, and classification.

A concurrent, deep learning-based computer-aided detection system for prostate multiparametric MRI: a performance study involving experienced and less-experienced radiologists

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of a deep learning-based computer-aided diagnosis (DL-CAD) system on experienced and less-experienced radiologists in reading prostate mpMRI.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multi-reader multi-case study, a consecutive set of 184 patients examined between 01/2018 and 08/2019 were enrolled. Ground truth was combined targeted and 12-core systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy. Four radiologists, two experienced and two less-experienced, evaluated each case twice, once without (DL-CAD-) and once assisted by DL-CAD (DL-CAD+). ROC analysis, sensitivities, specificities, PPV and NPV were calculated to compare the diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) between the two groups (DL-CAD- vs. DL-CAD+). Spearman's correlation coefficients were evaluated to assess the relationship between PI-RADS category and Gleason score (GS). Also, the median reading times were compared for the two reading groups.

RESULTS

In total, 172 patients were included in the final analysis. With DL-CAD assistance, the overall AUC of the less-experienced radiologists increased significantly from 0.66 to 0.80 (p = 0.001; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 1) and from 0.68 to 0.80 (p = 0.002; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 2). Experienced radiologists showed an AUC increase from 0.81 to 0.86 (p = 0.146; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 1) and from 0.81 to 0.84 (p = 0.433; cutoff ISUP GG ≥ 2). Furthermore, the correlation between PI-RADS category and GS improved significantly in the DL-CAD + group (0.45 vs. 0.57; p = 0.03), while the median reading time was reduced from 157 to 150 s (p = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS

DL-CAD assistance increased the mean detection performance, with the most significant benefit for the less-experienced radiologist; with the help of DL-CAD less-experienced radiologists reached performances comparable to that of experienced radiologists.

KEY POINTS

• DL-CAD used as a concurrent reading aid helps radiologists to distinguish between benign and cancerous lesions in prostate MRI. • With the help of DL-CAD, less-experienced radiologists may achieve detection performances comparable to that of experienced radiologists. • DL-CAD assistance increases the correlation between PI-RADS category and cancer grade.

Deep learning-based artificial intelligence for prostate cancer detection at biparametric MRI

PURPOSE

To present fully automated DL-based prostate cancer detection system for prostate MRI.

METHODS

MRI scans from two institutions, were used for algorithm training, validation, testing. MRI-visible lesions were contoured by an experienced radiologist. All lesions were biopsied using MRI-TRUS-guidance. Lesions masks, histopathological results were used as ground truth labels to train UNet, AH-Net architectures for prostate cancer lesion detection, segmentation. Algorithm was trained to detect any prostate cancer ≥ ISUP1. Detection sensitivity, positive predictive values, mean number of false positive lesions per patient were used as performance metrics.

RESULTS

525 patients were included for training, validation, testing of the algorithm. Dataset was split into training (n = 368, 70%), validation (n = 79, 15%), test (n = 78, 15%) cohorts. Dice coefficients in training, validation sets were 0.403, 0.307, respectively, for AHNet model compared to 0.372, 0.287, respectively, for UNet model. In validation set, detection sensitivity was 70.9%, PPV was 35.5%, mean number of false positive lesions/patient was 1.41 (range 0-6) for UNet model compared to 74.4% detection sensitivity, 47.8% PPV, mean number of false positive lesions/patient was 0.87 (range 0-5) for AHNet model. In test set, detection sensitivity for UNet was 72.8% compared to 63.0% for AHNet, mean number of false positive lesions/patient was 1.90 (range 0-7), 1.40 (range 0-6) in UNet, AHNet models, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We developed a DL-based AI approach which predicts prostate cancer lesions at biparametric MRI with reasonable performance metrics. While false positive lesion calls remain as a challenge of AI-assisted detection algorithms, this system can be utilized as an adjunct tool by radiologists.

Comparative performance of fully-automated and semi-automated artificial intelligence methods for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer on MRI: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

We systematically reviewed the current literature evaluating the ability of fully-automated deep learning (DL) and semi-automated traditional machine learning (TML) MRI-based artificial intelligence (AI) methods to differentiate clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) from indolent PCa (iPCa) and benign conditions.

METHODS

We performed a computerised bibliographic search of studies indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed, arXiv, medRxiv, and bioRxiv between 1 January 2016 and 31 July 2021. Two reviewers performed the title/abstract and full-text screening. The remaining papers were screened by four reviewers using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) for DL studies and Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) for TML studies. Papers that fulfilled the pre-defined screening requirements underwent full CLAIM/RQS evaluation alongside the risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2, both conducted by the same four reviewers. Standard measures of discrimination were extracted for the developed predictive models.

RESULTS

17/28 papers (five DL and twelve TML) passed the quality screening and were subject to a full CLAIM/RQS/QUADAS-2 assessment, which revealed a substantial study heterogeneity that precluded us from performing quantitative analysis as part of this review. The mean RQS of TML papers was 11/36, and a total of five papers had a high risk of bias. AUCs of DL and TML papers with low risk of bias ranged between 0.80-0.89 and 0.75-0.88, respectively.

CONCLUSION

We observed comparable performance of the two classes of AI methods and identified a number of common methodological limitations and biases that future studies will need to address to ensure the generalisability of the developed models.

Deep Learning in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging With Whole-Mount Histopathology Referenced Delineations

Background: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) plays an important role in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) in the current clinical setting. However, the performance of mpMRI usually varies based on the experience of the radiologists at different levels; thus, the demand for MRI interpretation warrants further analysis. In this study, we developed a deep learning (DL) model to improve PCa diagnostic ability using mpMRI and whole-mount histopathology data. Methods: A total of 739 patients, including 466 with PCa and 273 without PCa, were enrolled from January 2017 to December 2019. The mpMRI (T2 weighted imaging, diffusion weighted imaging, and apparent diffusion coefficient sequences) data were randomly divided into training (n = 659) and validation datasets (n = 80). According to the whole-mount histopathology, a DL model, including independent segmentation and classification networks, was developed to extract the gland and PCa area for PCa diagnosis. The area under the curve (AUC) were used to evaluate the performance of the prostate classification networks. The proposed DL model was subsequently used in clinical practice (independent test dataset; n = 200), and the PCa detective/diagnostic performance between the DL model and different level radiologists was evaluated based on the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy. Results: The AUC of the prostate classification network was 0.871 in the validation dataset, and it reached 0.797 using the DL model in the test dataset. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and accuracy of the DL model for diagnosing PCa in the test dataset were 0.710, 0.690, 0.696, and 0.700, respectively. For the junior radiologist without and with DL model assistance, these values were 0.590, 0.700, 0.663, and 0.645 versus 0.790, 0.720, 0.738, and 0.755, respectively. For the senior radiologist, the values were 0.690, 0.770, 0.750, and 0.730 vs. 0.810, 0.840, 0.835, and 0.825, respectively. The diagnosis made with DL model assistance for radiologists were significantly higher than those without assistance (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The diagnostic performance of DL model is higher than that of junior radiologists and can improve PCa diagnostic accuracy in both junior and senior radiologists.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Automated Cancer Detection on Prostate MRI: Opportunities and Ongoing Challenges, From the AJR Special Series on AI Applications

Prostate MRI utilization has increased greatly in the past decade, serving primarily to direct targeted prostate biopsies. However, prostate MRI interpretation remains prone to consideration interreader variation. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to standardize the detection of lesions on MRI that are suspicious for prostate cancer (PCa). This review explores the current status of AI for the automated detection of PCa by MRI. Recent literature providing promising results for AI models for PCa detection by MRI is highlighted. Numerous limitations of the existing literature are also described, including biases in model validation, heterogeneity in reporting of performance metrics, and lack of sufficient evidence of clinical translation. Challenges related to AI ethics and data governance are also discussed. An outlook is provided for AI in lesion detection by prostate MRI in the coming years, emphasizing current research needs. Future investigations, incorporating large-scale diverse multi-institutional training and testing datasets, are anticipated to enable the development of more robust AI models for PCa detection by MRI, though prospective clinical trials will ultimately be required to establish benefit of AI in patient management.