AI-powered prostate cancer detection: a multi-centre, multi-scanner validation study.
Loading...
Authors
Giganti, Francesco
Moreira da Silva, Nadia
Yeung, Michael
Davies, Lucy
Frary, Amy
Ferrer Rodriguez, Mirjana
Sushentsev, Nikita
Ashley, Nicholas
Andreou, Adrian
Bradley, Alison
Issue Date
2025-02-28
Type
Journal Article
Language
en
Keywords
Artificial intelligence , Magnetic resonance imaging , Prostatic neoplasms
Alternative Title
Abstract
Objectives: Multi-centre, multi-vendor validation of artificial intelligence (AI) software to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is lacking. We compared a new AI solution, validated on a separate dataset from different UK hospitals, to the original multidisciplinary team (MDT)-supported radiologist's interpretations.
Materials and methods: A Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked deep-learning (DL) computer-aided detection (CAD) medical device (Pi) was trained to detect Gleason Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 cancer using retrospective data from the PROSTATEx dataset and five UK hospitals (793 patients). Our separate validation dataset was on six machines from two manufacturers across six sites (252 patients). Data included in the study were from MRI scans performed between August 2018 to October 2022. Patients with a negative MRI who did not undergo biopsy were assumed to be negative (90.4% had prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL2). ROC analysis was used to compare radiologists who used a 5-category suspicion score.
Results: GG ≥ 2 prevalence in the validation set was 31%. Evaluated per patient, Pi was non-inferior to radiologists (considering a 10% performance difference as acceptable), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 vs. 0.95. At the predetermined risk threshold of 3.5, the AI software's sensitivity was 95% and specificity 67%, while radiologists at Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data Systems/Likert ≥ 3 identified GG ≥ 2 with a sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 73%. AI performed well per-site (AUC ≥ 0.83) at the patient-level independent of scanner age and field strength.
Conclusion: Real-world data testing suggests that Pi matches the performance of MDT-supported radiologists in GG ≥ 2 PCa detection and generalises to multiple sites, scanner vendors, and models.
Key points: QuestionThe performance of artificial intelligence-based medical tools for prostate MRI has yet to be evaluated on multi-centre, multi-vendor data to assess generalisability. FindingsA dedicated AI medical tool matches the performance of multidisciplinary team-supported radiologists in prostate cancer detection and generalises to multiple sites and scanners. Clinical relevanceThis software has the potential to support the MRI process for biopsy decision-making and target identification, but future prospective studies, where lesions identified by artificial intelligence are biopsied separately, are needed.
Description
© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Citation
Giganti, F. et al. (2025) 'AI-powered prostate cancer detection: a multi-centre, multi-scanner validation study', European Radiology 35 pp. 4915-4924 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11323-0
Publisher
Springer Nature
License
© 2025. The Author(s).
Journal
European radiology
Volume
35
Issue
8
PubMed ID
ISSN
1432-1084