Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: The increase in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) examinations as a fundamental tool in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnostics raises the need for supportive computer-aided imaging analysis. Therefore, we evaluated the performance of a commercially available AI-based algorithm for prostate cancer detection and classification in a multi-center setting.
Methods: Representative patients with 3T mpMRI between 2017 and 2022 at three different university hospitals were selected. Exams were read according to the PI-RADSv2.1 protocol and then assessed by an AI algorithm. Diagnostic accuracy for PCa of both human and AI readings were calculated using MR-guided ultrasound fusion biopsy as the gold standard.
Results: Analysis of 91 patients resulted in 138 target lesions. Median patient age was 67 years (range: 49-82), median PSA at the time of the MRI exam was 8.4 ng/mL (range: 1.47-73.7). Sensitivity and specificity for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa, defined as ISUP ≥ 2) were 92%/64% for radiologists vs. 91%/57% for AI detection on patient level and 90%/70% vs. 81%/78% on lesion level, respectively (cut-off PI-RADS ≥ 4). Two cases of csPCa were missed by the AI on patient-level, resulting in a negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.88 at a cut-off of PI-RADS ≥ 3.
Conclusions: AI-augmented lesion detection and scoring proved to be a robust tool in a multi-center setting with sensitivity comparable to the radiologists, even outperforming human reader specificity on both patient and lesion levels at a threshold of PI-RADS ≥3 and a threshold of PI-RADS ≥ 4 on lesion level. In anticipation of refinements of the algorithm and upon further validation, AI-detection could be implemented in the clinical workflow prior to human reading to exclude PCa, thereby drastically improving reading efficiency.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11899360 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers17050815 | DOI Listing |