Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37545845›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2023

Prediction and Mapping of Intraprostatic Tumor Extent with Artificial Intelligence.

Alan Priester, Richard E Fan, Joshua Shubert, Mirabela Rusu, Sulaiman Vesal, Wei Shao, Yash Samir Khandwala, Leonard S Marks, Shyam Natarajan, Geoffrey A Sonn

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Alan PriesterDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Richard E FanDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Joshua ShubertAvenda Health, Inc., Culver City, CA, USA.
Mirabela RusuDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sulaiman VesalDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Wei ShaoDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Yash Samir KhandwalaDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Leonard S MarksDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Shyam NatarajanDepartment of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Geoffrey A SonnDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Stanford University · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USStanford Health Care · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Rad-pathomic deep learning models to assist radiologists in differentiating aggressive from indolent prostate cancer on MRIR37CA260346 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Mirabela Rusu · 2022 to 2026
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA260346
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) underestimation of prostate cancer extent complicates the definition of focal treatment margins. Objective: To validate focal treatment margins produced by an artificial intelligence (AI) model. Design setting and participants: Testing was conducted retrospectively in an independent dataset of 50 consecutive patients who had radical prostatectomy for intermediate-risk cancer. An AI deep learning model incorporated multimodal imaging and biopsy data to produce three-dimensional cancer estimation maps and margins. AI margins were compared with conventional MRI regions of interest (ROIs), 10-mm margins around ROIs, and hemigland margins. The AI model also furnished predictions of negative surgical margin probability, which were assessed for accuracy. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Comparing AI with conventional margins, sensitivity was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and negative margin rates using chi-square tests. Predicted versus observed negative margin probability was assessed using linear regression. Clinically significant prostate cancer (International Society of Urological Pathology grade ≥2) delineated on whole-mount histopathology served as ground truth. Results and limitations: The mean sensitivity for cancer-bearing voxels was higher for AI margins (97%) than for conventional ROIs (37%, Conclusions: The AI model was accurate and effective in an independent test set. This approach could improve and standardize treatment margin definition, potentially reducing cancer recurrence rates. Furthermore, an accurate assessment of negative margin probability could facilitate informed decision-making for patients and physicians. Patient summary: Artificial intelligence was used to predict the extent of tumors in surgically removed prostate specimens. It predicted tumor margins more accurately than conventional methods.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasmsSurgical marginsSurgical pathology

Identifiers

PMID37545845
PMCPMC10403686
OpenAlexW4380886785

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.