Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40259798›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2025

Prostate Cancer Risk Stratification and Scan Tailoring Using Deep Learning on Abbreviated Prostate MRI.

Patricia M Johnson, Tarun Dutt, Luke A Ginocchio, Amanpreet Singh Saimbhi, Lavanya Umapathy, Kai Tobias Block, Daniel K Sodickson, Sumit Chopra, Angela Tong, Hersh Chandarana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Overcoming MRI accessibility barriers in cancer imaging with cutting-edge solutions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    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.

Patricia M JohnsonBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1547-9969
Tarun DuttBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Luke A GinocchioBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Amanpreet Singh SaimbhiBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Lavanya UmapathyBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7224-0930
Kai Tobias BlockBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3426-965X
Daniel K SodicksonBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Sumit ChopraBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Angela TongBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4733-3414
Hersh ChandaranaBernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of Radiology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

TR&D 4: Revealing Microstructure: Biophysical modeling and validation for discovery and clinical careP41EB017183 · NIBIB · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Christopher M Collins · 2014 to 2026
$19.3M
NIBIB NIH HHS NIH P41 EB017183NIBIB NIH HHS P41 EB017183
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRI plays a critical role in prostate cancer (PCa) detection and management. Bi-parametric MRI (bpMRI) offers a faster, contrast-free alternative to multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI). Routine use of mpMRI for all patients may not be necessary, and a tailored imaging approach (bpMRI or mpMRI) based on individual risk might optimize resource utilization. PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a deep learning (DL) model for classifying clinically significant PCa (csPCa) using bpMRI and to assess its potential for optimizing MRI protocol selection by recommending the additional sequences of mpMRI only when beneficial. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective and prospective. POPULATION: The DL model was trained and validated on 26,129 prostate MRI studies. A retrospective cohort of 151 patients (mean age 65 ± 8) with ground-truth verification from biopsy, prostatectomy, or long-term follow-up, alongside a prospective cohort of 142 treatment-naïve patients (mean age 65 ± 9) undergoing bpMRI, was evaluated. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T, Turbo-spin echo T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and single shot EPI diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). ASSESSMENT: The DL model, based on a 3D ResNet-50 architecture, classified csPCa using PI-RADS ≥ 3 and Gleason ≥ 7 as outcome measures. The model was evaluated on a prospective cohort labeled by consensus of three radiologists and a retrospective cohort with ground truth verification based on biopsy or long-term follow-up. Real-time inference was tested on an automated MRI workflow, providing classification results directly at the scanner. STATISTICAL TESTS: AUROC with 95% confidence intervals (CI) was used to evaluate model performance.

resultsIn the prospective cohort, the model achieved an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.77-0.89) for PI-RADS ≥ 3 classification, with 93% sensitivity and 54% specificity. In the retrospective cohort, the model achieved an AUC of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.80-0.91) for Gleason ≥ 7 classification, with 93% sensitivity and 62% specificity. Real-time implementation demonstrated a processing latency of 14-16 s for protocol recommendations. DATA

conclusionThe proposed DL model identifies csPCa using bpMRI and integrates it into clinical workflows. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 1. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsAgedHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMaleMiddle AgedMultiparametric Magnetic Resonance ImagingProspective StudiesProstateReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk Assessmentbiparametric MRIdeep learningprostate cancer

Identifiers

PMID40259798
PMCPMC12335925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.