Belue Mason J, Mukhtar Vaneeza, Ram Roopa, Gokden Neriman, Jose Joe, Massey Jackson L, Biben Emily, Buddha Suryakala, Langford Timothy, Shah Sumit, Harmon Stephanie A, Turkbey Baris, Aydin Ahmet Murat
Department of Urology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas (M.J.B., V.M., J.L.M., E.B., T.L., A.M.A.).
Department of Radiology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas (R.R., J.J., S.B., S.S.).
Acad Radiol. 2025 Jul;32(7):3813-3823. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2025.03.039. Epub 2025 Apr 11.
Prostate imaging reporting and data systems (PI-RADS) experiences considerable variability in inter-reader performance. Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms were suggested to provide comparable performance to PI-RADS for assessing prostate cancer (PCa) risk, albeit tested in highly selected cohorts. This study aimed to assess an AI algorithm for PCa detection in a clinical practice setting and simulate integration of the AI model with PI-RADS for assessment of indeterminate PI-RADS 3 lesions.
This retrospective cohort study externally validated a biparametric MRI-based AI model for PCa detection in a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent prostate MRI and subsequently targeted and systematic prostate biopsy at a urology clinic between January 2022 and March 2024. Radiologist interpretations followed PI-RADS v2.1, and biopsies were conducted per PI-RADS scores. The previously developed AI model provided lesion segmentations and cancer probability maps which were compared to biopsy results. Additionally, we conducted a simulation to adjust biopsy thresholds for index PI-RADS category 3 studies, where AI predictions within these studies upgraded them to PI-RADS category 4.
Among 144 patients with a median age of 70 years and PSA density of 0.17ng/mL/cc, AI's sensitivity for detection of PCa (86.6%) and clinically significant PCa (csPCa, 88.4%) was comparable to radiologists (85.7%, p=0.84, and 89.5%, p=0.80, respectively). The simulation combining radiologist and AI evaluations improved clinically significant PCa sensitivity by 5.8% (p=0.025). The combination of AI, PI-RADS and PSA density provided the best diagnostic performance for csPCa (area under the curve [AUC]=0.76).
The AI algorithm demonstrated comparable PCa detection rates to PI-RADS. The combination of AI with radiologist interpretation improved sensitivity and could be instrumental in assessment of low-risk and indeterminate PI-RADS lesions. The role of AI in PCa screening remains to be further elucidated.
前列腺影像报告和数据系统(PI-RADS)在不同阅片者之间的表现存在显著差异。有人建议使用人工智能(AI)算法在评估前列腺癌(PCa)风险方面提供与PI-RADS相当的性能,尽管这是在经过高度筛选的队列中进行测试的。本研究旨在评估一种用于在临床实践环境中检测PCa的AI算法,并模拟AI模型与PI-RADS的整合,以评估PI-RADS 3类不确定病变。
这项回顾性队列研究在2022年1月至2024年3月期间在一家泌尿外科诊所对连续接受前列腺MRI检查并随后进行靶向和系统性前列腺活检的患者队列中,对基于双参数MRI的PCa检测AI模型进行了外部验证。放射科医生的解读遵循PI-RADS v2.1,并根据PI-RADS评分进行活检。先前开发的AI模型提供了病变分割和癌症概率图,并将其与活检结果进行比较。此外,我们进行了一项模拟,以调整索引PI-RADS 3类研究的活检阈值,在这些研究中,AI预测将它们升级为PI-RADS 4类。
在144名中位年龄为70岁、PSA密度为0.17ng/mL/cc的患者中,AI检测PCa的敏感性(86.6%)和临床显著PCa(csPCa,88.4%)与放射科医生相当(分别为85.7%,p = 0.84和89.5%,p = 0.80)。结合放射科医生和AI评估的模拟将临床显著PCa的敏感性提高了5.8%(p = 0.025)。AI、PI-RADS和PSA密度的组合为csPCa提供了最佳诊断性能(曲线下面积[AUC]=0.76)。
AI算法在检测PCa方面显示出与PI-RADS相当的比率。AI与放射科医生解读的结合提高了敏感性,并且在评估低风险和PI-RADS不确定病变方面可能有用。AI在PCa筛查中的作用仍有待进一步阐明。