Part II: Effect of different evaluation methods to the application of a computer-aided prostate MRI detection/diagnosis (CADe/CADx) device on reader performance.

INTRODUCTION: The construction and results of a multiple-reader multiple-case prostate MRI study are described and reported to illustrate recommendations for how to standardize artificial intelligence (AI) prostate studies per the review constituting Part I1. METHODS: Our previously reported approach was applied to review and report an IRB approved, HIPAA compliant multiple-reader multiple-case clinical study of 150 bi-parametric prostate MRI studies across 9 readers, measuring physician performance both with and without the use of the recently FDA cleared CADe/CADx software ProstatID. RESULTS: Unassisted reader AUC values ranged from 0.418 - 0.759, with AI assisted AUC values ranging from 0.507 - 0.787. This represented a statistically significant AUC improvement of 0.045 (α = 0.05). A free-response ROC (FROC) analysis similarly demonstrated a statistically significant increase in θ from 0.405 to 0.453 (α = 0.05). The standalone performance of ProstatID performed across all prostate tissues demonstrated an AUC of 0.929, while the standalone lesion level performance of ProstatID at all biopsied locations achieved an AUC of 0.710. CONCLUSION: This study applies and illustrates suggested reporting and standardization methods for prostate AI studies that will make it easier to understand, evaluate and compare between AI studies. Providing radiologists with the ProstatID CADe/CADx software significantly increased diagnostic performance as assessed by both ROC and free-response ROC metrics. Such algorithms have the potential to improve radiologist performance in the detection and localization of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Part I: prostate cancer detection, artificial intelligence for prostate cancer and how we measure diagnostic performance: a comprehensive review.

MRI has firmly established itself as a mainstay for the detection, staging and surveillance of prostate cancer. Despite its success, prostate MRI continues to suffer from poor inter-reader variability and a low positive predictive value. The recent emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to potentially improve diagnostic performance shows great potential. Understanding and interpreting the AI landscape as well as ever-increasing research literature, however, is difficult. This is in part due to widely varying study design and reporting techniques. This paper aims to address this need by first outlining the different types of AI used for the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer, next deciphering how data collection methods, statistical analysis metrics (such as ROC and FROC analysis) and end points/outcomes (lesion detection vs. case diagnosis) affect the performance and limit the ability to compare between studies. Finally, this work explores the need for appropriately enriched investigational datasets and proper ground truth, and provides guidance on how to best conduct AI prostate MRI studies. Published in parallel, a clinical study applying this suggested study design was applied to review and report a multiple-reader multiple-case clinical study of 150 bi-parametric prostate MRI studies across nine readers, measuring physician performance both with and without the use of a recently FDA cleared Artificial Intelligence software.1.