Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40016318›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2025

AI-powered prostate cancer detection: a multi-centre, multi-scanner validation study.

Francesco Giganti, Nadia Moreira da Silva, Michael Yeung, Lucy Davies, Amy Frary, Mirjana Ferrer Rodriguez, Nikita Sushentsev, Nicholas Ashley, Adrian Andreou, Alison Bradley and 25 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
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 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Modern integrative prostate cancer diagnostics.Current opinion in urology · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

35 authors.

Francesco Giganti *Department of Radiology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. f.giganti@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5218-6431
Nadia Moreira da Silva *Lucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Michael YeungLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Lucy DaviesLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Amy FraryLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Mirjana Ferrer RodriguezLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Nikita SushentsevCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Nicholas AshleyLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Adrian AndreouRoyal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK.
Alison BradleyRoyal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK.
Chris WilsonLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Giles MaskellRoyal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK.
Giorgio BrembillaIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Iztok CaglicCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jakub SuchánekFabrica AI Corp., Delaware City, DE, USA.
Jobie BuddLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Zobair AryaLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Jonathan AningNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
John HayesEast and North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Mark De BonoMid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Southend, UK.
Nikhil VasdevEast and North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Nimalan SanmugalingamCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Paul BurnSomerset NHS Foundation Trust, Taunton, UK.
Raj PersadNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Ramona WoitekResearch Center for Medical Image Analysis and Artificial Intelligence (MIAAI), Danube Private University, Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Richard HindleyUniversity of Winchester, Winchester, UK.
Sidath LiyanageMid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, Southend, UK.
Sophie SquireHampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Tristan BarrettCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust & University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Steffi BarwickLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Mark HintonLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Anwar R PadhaniPaul Strickland Scanner Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, UK.
Antony RixLucida Medical Ltd, Cambridge, UK.
Aarti ShahHampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Winchester, UK.
Evis SalaDipartimento Diagnostica per Immagini e Radioterapia Oncologica, Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMulti-centre, multi-vendor validation of artificial intelligence (AI) software to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is lacking. We compared a new AI solution, validated on a separate dataset from different UK hospitals, to the original multidisciplinary team (MDT)-supported radiologist's interpretations. MATERIALS AND

methodsA Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked deep-learning (DL) computer-aided detection (CAD) medical device (Pi) was trained to detect Gleason Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 cancer using retrospective data from the PROSTATEx dataset and five UK hospitals (793 patients). Our separate validation dataset was on six machines from two manufacturers across six sites (252 patients). Data included in the study were from MRI scans performed between August 2018 to October 2022. Patients with a negative MRI who did not undergo biopsy were assumed to be negative (90.4% had prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL

resultsGG ≥ 2 prevalence in the validation set was 31%. Evaluated per patient, Pi was non-inferior to radiologists (considering a 10% performance difference as acceptable), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 vs. 0.95. At the predetermined risk threshold of 3.5, the AI software's sensitivity was 95% and specificity 67%, while radiologists at Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data Systems/Likert ≥ 3 identified GG ≥ 2 with a sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 73%. AI performed well per-site (AUC ≥ 0.83) at the patient-level independent of scanner age and field strength.

conclusionReal-world data testing suggests that Pi matches the performance of MDT-supported radiologists in GG ≥ 2 PCa detection and generalises to multiple sites, scanner vendors, and models. KEY POINTS: QuestionThe performance of artificial intelligence-based medical tools for prostate MRI has yet to be evaluated on multi-centre, multi-vendor data to assess generalisability. FindingsA dedicated AI medical tool matches the performance of multidisciplinary team-supported radiologists in prostate cancer detection and generalises to multiple sites and scanners. Clinical relevanceThis software has the potential to support the MRI process for biopsy decision-making and target identification, but future prospective studies, where lesions identified by artificial intelligence are biopsied separately, are needed.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedDeep LearningHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUnited KingdomArtificial intelligenceMagnetic resonance imagingProstatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID40016318
PMCPMC12226644

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.