Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Comparison of an AI-Based Software and an Experienced Radiologist for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.
1/5 보강
PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 3/4)
유사 논문P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
150 patients who underwent prostate MRI followed by combined systematic and MRI-targeted transperineal biopsy.
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
prostate MRI followed by combined systematic and MRI-targeted transperineal biopsy
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
PAROS detected more lesions, particularly in the transition zone. PAROS achieved csPCa detection comparable to an experienced radiologist, supporting its role as a decision-support tool in prostate MRI interpretation.
Multiparametric MRI is central to detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), but diagnostic accuracy depends on reader experience.
APA
Castellana R, Marzi S, et al. (2026). Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Comparison of an AI-Based Software and an Experienced Radiologist for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.. Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 33(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol33030151
MLA
Castellana R, et al.. "Artificial Intelligence in Prostate MRI: Comparison of an AI-Based Software and an Experienced Radiologist for Detecting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer.." Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), vol. 33, no. 3, 2026.
PMID
41892179
Abstract
Multiparametric MRI is central to detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), but diagnostic accuracy depends on reader experience. Artificial intelligence (AI) tools may support prostate MRI interpretation and reduce inter-reader variability. This study compared the detection rate of a trial, non-commercial version an AI-based software (PAROS) with that of an experienced radiologist. This retrospective single-center study included 150 patients who underwent prostate MRI followed by combined systematic and MRI-targeted transperineal biopsy. MRI examinations were interpreted by an experienced radiologist according to PI-RADS v2.1 and independently analyzed using a precommercial trial version of PAROS operating on biparametric MRI. Histopathology served as the reference standard. Detection rate was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) at PI-RADS thresholds ≥3 and ≥4. CsPCa was present in 63.3% of patients. At both PI-RADS thresholds, PAROS and the radiologist showed comparable sensitivity and specificity, wuth extremely low NLRs, indicating excellent rule-out capability. PLRs were modest and similar at PI-RADS ≥ 3 (1.26 vs. 1.42) and 1.88 for both at PI-RADS ≥ 4. PAROS detected more lesions, particularly in the transition zone. PAROS achieved csPCa detection comparable to an experienced radiologist, supporting its role as a decision-support tool in prostate MRI interpretation.
MeSH Terms
Humans; Male; Prostatic Neoplasms; Artificial Intelligence; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Aged; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Software; Radiologists; Sensitivity and Specificity