ReviewCureus2025
Artificial Intelligence in MRI for Urologic Oncology: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy and Clinical Utility.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) integrated with MRI is rapidly transforming urologic oncology by enhancing lesion detection, risk stratification, and workflow efficiency. However, existing evidence remains fragmented across tumor sites and model types. This systematic review aimed to synthesize the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of AI applied to MRI in prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers, while evaluating study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-Artificial Intelligence (QUADAS-AI) tool. Following a registered protocol and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, comprehensive searches of PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science identified 4,442 records; after removing duplicates and screening, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data on model type, diagnostic tasks, cohorts, comparators, and reference standards, and assessed risk of bias. In prostate MRI, AI systems - including deep learning, radiomics, and zone-specific computer-aided detection models - demonstrated diagnostic accuracy comparable to expert Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) assessment, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.82-0.89 and sensitivities of 91-95%, enabling biopsy-reduction strategies without compromising detection of clinically significant cancers. In kidney MRI, ensemble residual neural network (ResNet) and convolutional neural network (CNN)-based models differentiated benign from malignant lesions with sensitivities near 0.92 and AUCs around 0.90, often matching or surpassing radiologist performance, particularly in identifying oncocytomas. For bladder MRI, radiomics, and federated deep-learning frameworks accurately distinguished muscle-invasive from non-muscle-invasive disease, achieving AUCs up to 0.93 and demonstrating strong cross-center generalizability. Segmentation networks achieved high geometric accuracy (Dice similarity coefficient >0.90), reducing contouring time, while cost analyses indicated AI-assisted MRI as a dominant, economically favorable alternative to standard imaging pathways. Overall, AI-assisted MRI achieves diagnostic performance comparable to expert interpretation across prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers, offering added value in biopsy triage, staging, segmentation, and potential cost savings. Future efforts should focus on standardized reporting, external validation, prospective impact evaluation, and assessment of pricing and reimbursement models to ensure safe and equitable clinical adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.