Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39699671›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

Evaluation of a deep learning prostate cancer detection system on biparametric MRI against radiological reading.

Noëlie Debs, Alexandre Routier, Alexandre Bône, Marc-Miche Rohé

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Prostate MR Imaging: Technical Foundations, Clinical Applications, and Workflow Implications.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

4 authors.

Noëlie DebsGuerbet Research, Paris, France. noelie.debs@guerbet.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9958-8806
Alexandre RoutierGuerbet Research, Paris, France.
Alexandre BôneGuerbet Research, Paris, France.
Marc-Miche RohéGuerbet Research, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aims to evaluate a deep learning pipeline for detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥ 2, using biparametric MRI (bpMRI) and compare its performance with radiological reading. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe training dataset included 4381 bpMRI cases (3800 positive and 581 negative) across three continents, with 80% annotated using PI-RADS and 20% with Gleason Scores. The testing set comprised 328 cases from the PROSTATEx dataset, including 34% positive (GGG ≥ 2) and 66% negative cases. A 3D nnU-Net was trained on bpMRI for lesion detection, evaluated using histopathology-based annotations, and assessed with patient- and lesion-level metrics, along with lesion volume, and GGG. The algorithm was compared to non-expert radiologists using multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI).

resultsThe model achieved an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.80, 0.87). Lesion-level sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI: 0.82, 0.94) at 0.5 False Positives per volume (FP/volume) and 0.88 (95% CI: 0.79, 0.92) at 1 FP/volume. Average Precision was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.64). The model showed over 0.90 sensitivity for lesions larger than 650 mm³ and exceeded 0.85 across GGGs. It had higher true positive rates (TPRs) than radiologists equivalent FP rates, achieving TPRs of 0.93 and 0.79 compared to radiologists' 0.87 and 0.68 for PI-RADS ≥ 3 and PI-RADS ≥ 4 lesions (p ≤ 0.05).

conclusionThe DL model showed strong performance in detecting csPCa on an independent test cohort, surpassing radiological interpretation and demonstrating AI's potential to improve diagnostic accuracy for non-expert radiologists. However, detecting small lesions remains challenging. KEY POINTS: Question Current prostate cancer detection methods often do not involve non-expert radiologists, highlighting the need for more accurate deep learning approaches using biparametric MRI. Findings Our model outperforms radiologists significantly, showing consistent performance across Gleason Grade Groups and for medium to large lesions. Clinical relevance This AI model improves prostate detection accuracy in prostate imaging, serves as a benchmark with reference performance on a public dataset, and offers public PI-RADS annotations, enhancing transparency and facilitating further research and development.

Indexed as

Deep LearningImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingSensitivity and SpecificityDeep learningMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm gradingProstatic neoplasmsRadiologists

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.