Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39792014›Full record

ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2025

Development and Validation of a Deep Learning Model Based on MRI and Clinical Characteristics to Predict Risk of Prostate Cancer Progression.

Christian Roest, Thomas C Kwee, Igle J de Jong, Ivo G Schoots, Pim van Leeuwen, Stijn W T P J Heijmink, Henk G van der Poel, Stefan J Fransen, Anindo Saha, Henkjan Huisman and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

11 authors.

Christian RoestDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3575-4465
Thomas C KweeDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9005-8529
Igle J de JongDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ivo G SchootsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9804-0603
Pim van LeeuwenDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stijn W T P J HeijminkDepartment of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Henk G van der PoelDepartment of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Stefan J FransenDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5454-5052
Anindo SahaDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5091-9862
Henkjan HuismanDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6753-3221
Derya YakarDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4920-9441

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose To validate a deep learning (DL) model for predicting the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) progression based on MRI and clinical parameters and compare it with established models. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included 1607 MRI scans of 1143 male patients (median age, 64 years; IQR, 59-68 years) undergoing MRI for suspicion of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) (International Society of Urological Pathology grade > 1) between January 2012 and May 2022 who were negative for csPCa at baseline MRI. A DL model was developed using baseline MRI and clinical parameters (age, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] level, PSA density, and prostate volume) to predict the time to PCa progression (defined as csPCa diagnosis at follow-up). Internal and external testing was performed. The model's ability to predict progression to csPCa was assessed by Cox regression analyses. Predictive performance of the DL model up to 5 years after baseline MRI in comparison with the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) future-risk calculator, Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculator, and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) was assessed using the Harrell C-index. Optimized follow-up intervals were derived from Kaplan-Meier curves. Results DL scores predicted csPCa progression (internal cohort: hazard ratio [HR], 1.97 [95% CI: 1.61, 2.41;

Indexed as

Deep LearningDisease ProgressionMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProstateProstate-Specific AntigenRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentProstate-Specific AntigenDeep LearningMRIProstate Cancer

Identifiers

PMID39792014
PMCPMC11791668

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.