RESUMO
Prostate magnetic resonance imaging has become the imaging standard for prostate cancer in various clinical settings, with interpretation standardized according to the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS). Each year, hundreds of scientific studies that report on the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS are published. To keep up with this ever-increasing evidence base, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential. As systematic reviews are highly resource-intensive, we investigated whether a machine learning framework can reduce the manual workload and speed up the screening process (title and abstract). We used search results from a living systematic review of the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS (1585 studies, of which 482 were potentially eligible after screening). A naïve Bayesian classifier was implemented in an active learning environment for classification of the titles and abstracts. Our outcome variable was the percentage of studies that can be excluded after 95% of relevant studies have been identified by the classifier (work saved over sampling: WSS@95%). In simulation runs of the entire screening process (controlling for classifier initiation and the frequency of classifier updating), we obtained a WSS@95% value of 28% (standard error of the mean ±0.1%). Applied prospectively, our classification framework would translate into a significant reduction in manual screening effort. Patient summary: Systematic reviews of scientific evidence are labor-intensive and take a lot of time. For example, many studies on prostate cancer diagnosis via MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) are published every year. We describe the use of machine learning to reduce the manual workload in screening search results. For a review of MRI for prostate cancer diagnosis, this approach reduced the screening workload by about 28%.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) improves the detection of aggressive prostate cancer (PCa) subtypes. As cases of active surveillance (AS) increase and tumor progression triggers definitive treatment, we evaluated whether an AI-driven algorithm can detect clinically significant PCa (csPCa) in patients under AS. METHODS: Consecutive patients under AS who received mpMRI (PI-RADSv2.1 protocol) and subsequent MR-guided ultrasound fusion (targeted and extensive systematic) biopsy between 2017 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Diagnostic performance of an automated clinically certified AI-driven algorithm was evaluated on both lesion and patient level regarding the detection of csPCa. RESULTS: Analysis of 56 patients resulted in 93 target lesions. Patient level sensitivity and specificity of the AI algorithm was 92.5%/31% for the detection of ISUP ≥ 1 and 96.4%/25% for the detection of ISUP ≥ 2, respectively. The only case of csPCa missed by the AI harbored only 1/47 Gleason 7a core (systematic biopsy; previous and subsequent biopsies rendered non-csPCa). CONCLUSIONS: AI-augmented lesion detection and PI-RADS scoring is a robust tool to detect progression to csPCa in patients under AS. Integration in the clinical workflow can serve as reassurance for the reader and streamline reporting, hence improve efficiency and diagnostic confidence.
