Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41157181›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Beyond PSA: The Future of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Using Artificial Intelligence, Novel Biomarkers, and Advanced Imagery.

Moncef Al Barajraji, Mathieu Coscarella, Ilyas Svistakov, Helena Flôres Soares da Silva, Paula Mata Déniz, María Jesús Marugan, Claudia González-Santander, Lorena Fernández Montarroso, Isabel Galante, Juan Gómez Rivas and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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.

Moncef Al BarajrajiDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.
Mathieu CoscarellaDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6448-2585
Ilyas SvistakovDepartment of Urology, Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles, Université Libre Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8057-0369
Helena Flôres Soares da SilvaDepartment of Urology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre 91509-900, Brazil.
Paula Mata DénizDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
María Jesús MaruganDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Claudia González-SantanderDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Lorena Fernández MontarrosoDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Isabel GalanteDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2223-9018
Juan Gómez RivasDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0556-3035
Jesús Moreno SierraDepartment of Urology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6837-7718

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis has historically relied on the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. Although the screening significantly reduces mortality rates, PSA has low specificity with risks of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. These limitations highlight the need for a more accurate diagnostic approach. Emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), novel biomarkers, and advanced imaging techniques, offer promising avenues to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of PCa diagnosis and risk stratification. This narrative review comprehensively analyzed the current literature, focusing on new tools aiding PCa diagnosis (AI-driven image interpretation, radiomics, genomic classifiers, biomarkers, and multimodal data integration) with consideration for technical, regulatory, and ethical challenges related to clinical implementation of AI-based technologies. A literature search was performed using the PubMed and MEDLINE databases to identify relevant peer-reviewed articles published in English using the search terms "prostate cancer," "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," "deep learning," "MRI," "histopathology," and "diagnosis." Articles were selected based on their relevance to AI-assisted diagnostic tools, clinical utility, and performance metrics. In addition, a separate section was developed initially to contextualize the limitations of current PSA-based screening approaches. The reviewed studies showed that AI had significant utility in prostate mpMRI interpretation (lesion detection; Gleason grading) with high accuracy and high reproducibility. For the pathologist, AI-driven algorithms improve the diagnostic accuracy of digital slide evaluation for histologic diagnosis of prostate cancer and automated Gleason score grading. Genomic tools such as the Oncotype DX test, combined with AI, could also allow for tailored and individualized risk prediction. Overall, multimodal models integrating clinical, imaging, and molecular data often outperform traditional PSA-based strategies and reduce unnecessary biopsies. Transition from PSA-centered toward AI-driven, biomarker-supported, and image-enhanced diagnosis marks a critical evolution in PCa diagnosis.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceMRImultimodal diagnosisprostate cancerPSA

Identifiers

PMID41157181
PMCPMC12565164

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.