ArticleEuropean radiology2026
AI decision support for increasing prostate biopsy efficiency: a retrospective multicentre, multiscanner study.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and retrospectively validate an artificial intelligence-based decision support system (AI-DSS) for optimising prostate biopsy decisions and improving benefit-to-harm ratios. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective, multicentre, multiscanner study used data from 1022 patients. An AI-DSS integrating PI-RADS scores, automated prostate-specific antigen density (PSAd), and deep-learning imaging risk scores was developed on 770 cases and validated on an independent cohort of 252 men from six UK centres. The AI-DSS performance was benchmarked against the real-world clinical decisions (reference standard) using grade selectivity, biopsy efficiency, and selective biopsy avoidance as outcome measures. Biopsy-proven detection of grade group (GG) ≥ 2 disease was the reference standard.
resultsIn the validation cohort of 252 patients (mean age, 67.3 years), 137 underwent biopsy and 79 (31%) harboured ≥ GG2 disease. Compared to the reference standard, the AI-DSS at the 31% cancer detection rate (CDR) would have avoided 28 biopsies while missing one ≥ GG2 cancer. This corresponded to a 70% increase in grade selectivity (from 4.6 to 7.8), 79% increase in biopsy efficiency (from 1.4 to 2.5), and a 143% increase in selective biopsy avoidance (from 2.8 to 6.8). At the reduced CDR of 30%, grade selectivity, biopsy efficiency, and selective biopsy avoidance increased by 172%, 236%, and 475%, with four ≥ GG2 cancers missed.
conclusionAn AI-DSS that integrates clinical and advanced imaging data improves the benefit-to-harm ratio of prostate biopsy decisions in a retrospective setting. Future prospective validation as part of real-world clinical workflow is required to enable clinical implementation. KEY POINTS: Question Current prostate cancer diagnostic pathways result in fewer unnecessary biopsies. Can an AI decision support system (AI-DSS) further improve biopsy efficiency for detecting significant cancer? Findings An AI-DSS avoided 28 biopsies in a 252-patient cohort, increasing grade selectivity, biopsy efficiency, and selective biopsy avoidance by 70%, 79%, and 143%, respectively. Clinical relevance Integrating an AI-DSS into clinical workflows may further reduce unnecessary prostate biopsies and overdiagnosis of indolent disease, thus potentially improving the efficiency of the prostate cancer diagnostic pathway.
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.