Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40371421›Full record

ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025

Review of different convolutional neural networks used in segmentation of prostate during fusion biopsy.

Maciej Zwolski, Andrzej Kupilas, Przemysław Cnota

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Central European journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Maciej ZwolskiDepartment of Urology and Urooncology, Municipal Hospital No. 4 in Gliwice, Poland.
Andrzej KupilasDepartment of Urology and Urooncology, Municipal Hospital No. 4 in Gliwice, Poland.
Przemysław CnotaDepartment of Urology and Urooncology, Municipal Hospital No. 4 in Gliwice, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The incidence of prostate cancer is increasing in Poland, particularly due to the aging population. This review explores the potential of deep learning algorithms to accelerate prostate contouring during fusion biopsies, a time-consuming but crucial process for the precise diagnosis and appropriate therapeutic decision-making in prostate cancer. Implementing convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can significantly improve segmentation accuracy in multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI). Material and methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed and IEEE Xplore, focusing on open-access studies from the past five years, and following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. The review evaluates the enhancement of prostate contouring and segmentation in MRI for fusion biopsies using CNNs. Results: The results indicate that CNNs, particularly those utilizing the U-Net architecture, are predominantly selected for advanced medical image analysis. All the reviewed algorithms achieved a Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) above 74%, indicating high precision and effectiveness in automatic prostate segmentation. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the methods used to evaluate segmentation outcomes across different studies. Conclusions: This review underscores the need for developing and optimizing segmentation algorithms tailored to the specific needs of urologists performing fusion biopsies. Future research with larger cohorts is recommended to confirm these findings and further enhance the practical application of CNN-based segmentation tools in clinical settings.

Indexed as

convolutional neural networks (CNNs)deep learningfusion biopsyprostate cancerprostate segmentation

Identifiers

PMID40371421
PMCPMC12073522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.