Abstract
Objectives To 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 methods This 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.
Results In 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.
Conclusion An 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?
Materials and methods This 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.
Results In 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.
Conclusion An 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?
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | European Radiology |
| Early online date | 20 Feb 2026 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | E-pub ahead of print - 20 Feb 2026 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'AI decision support for increasing prostate biopsy efficiency: a retrospective multicentre, multiscanner study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver