A prospective multi-center randomized comparative trial evaluating outcomes of transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided 12-core systematic biopsy, mpMRI-targeted 12-core biopsy, and artificial intelligence ultrasound of prostate (AIUSP) 6-core targeted biopsy for prostate cancer diagnosis

Comparative Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy and Complication Rate of Transperineal Versus Transrectal Prostate Biopsy in Prostate Cancer Diagnosis

INTRODUCTION

Transperineal prostate (TP) biopsy has emerged as a substantial alternative to the conventional transrectal (TR) approach for prostate sampling by its ability to sample specific areas of the prostate more effectively. The objective of this review is to conduct a comparative analysis of the current literature regarding diagnostic accuracy, complication rate and clinical outcome of transrectal vs. transperineal approaches in prostate biopsy-naïve patients and in repeated biopsy scenarios.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive search of the literature in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted between September 2010 and September 2024. We utilized a robust and comprehensive retrieval strategy including phrasing the two approaches as follows: (perineal or transperineal) and (rectal or transrectal).

CONCLUSIONS

The transperineal and transrectal approaches show similar results in the detection of PCa in biopsy-naïve men, similar rates of infection, urinary retention and effectiveness managing biopsy-associated pain. However, in the rebiopsy scenario, the TP approach has demonstrated increased accuracy compared to the TR approach. This has significant implications in decision making and patient counselling.

Comparison of MRI artificial intelligence-guided cognitive fusion-targeted biopsy versus routine cognitive fusion-targeted prostate biopsy in prostate cancer diagnosis: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cognitive fusion MRI-guided targeted biopsy (cTB) has been widely used in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). However, cTB relies heavily on the operator's experience and confidence in MRI readings. Our objective was to compare the cancer detection rates of MRI artificial intelligence-guided cTB (AI-cTB) and routine cTB and explore the added value of using AI for the guidance of cTB.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-institution randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing clinically significant PCa (csPCa) and PCa detection rates between AI-cTB and cTB. A total of 380 eligible patients were randomized to the AI-cTB group (n = 191) or the cTB group (n = 189). The AI-cTB group underwent AI-cTB plus systematic biopsy (SB) and the cTB group underwent routine cTB plus SB. The primary outcome was the detection rate of csPCa. The reference standard was the pathological results of the combination of TB (AI-cTB/cTB) and SB. Comparisons of detection rates of csPCa and PCa between groups were performed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The overall csPCa and PCa detection rates of the whole inclusion cohort were 58.8% and 61.3%, respectively. The csPCa detection rates of TB combined with SB in the AI-cTB group were significantly greater than those in the cTB group at both the patient level (58.64% vs. 46.56%, p = 0.018) and per-lesion level (61.47% vs. 47.79%, p = 0.004). Compared with cTB, the AI-cTB could detect a greater proportion of patients with csPCa at both the per-patient level (69.39% vs. 49.71%, p < 0.001) and per-lesion level (68.97% vs. 48.57%, p < 0.001). Multivariate logistic analysis indicated that compared with the cTB, the AI-cTB significantly improved the possibility of detecting csPCa (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-cTB effectively improved the csPCa detection rate. This study successfully integrated AI with TB in the routine clinical workflow and provided a research paradigm for prospective AI-integrated clinical studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06362291.

The first-in-human preclinical evaluation of the new probe [123I]I-PSMA-7 for real-time intraoperative targeted biopsy and SPECT/CT imaging in prostate cancer

PURPOSE

PSMA/PET has been increasingly used to detect PCa, and PSMA/PET-guided biopsy has shown promising results. However, it cannot be confirmed immediately whether the tissues are the targeted area. In this study, we aimed to develop a novel probe, [123I]I-PSMA-7. First, we hope that [123I]I-PSMA-7 can provide instant confirmation for prostate biopsy. Second, we hope it will help detect PCa.

METHODS

We synthesized a high-affinity probe, [123I]I-PSMA-7, and evaluated its properties. We included ten patients with suspected PCa and divided them into two groups. The injection and biopsy were approximately 24 h apart. The activity in biopsy lesions was measured as the cpm by a γ-counter. Moreover, we enrolled 3 patients to evaluate the potential of [123I]I-PSMA-7 for detecting PCa.

RESULTS

Animal experiments verified the safety, targeting and effectiveness of [123I]I-PSMA-7, and the tumor-to-muscle ratio was greatest at 24 h, which confirmed the results of this study in humans. After injection of 185MBq [123I]I-PSMA-7, 18/55 cores were positive, and the cpm was significantly greater (4345 ± 3547 vs. 714 ± 547, P < 0.001), with an AUC of 0.97 and a cutoff of 1312 (sens/spec of 94.40%/91.90%). At a lower dose, 10/55 biopsy cores were cancerous, and the cpm was 2446 ± 1622 vs. 153 ± 112 (P < 0.001). The AUC was 1, with a cutoff value of 490 (sens/spec of 100%). When the radiopharmaceuticals were added to 370 MBq, we achieved better SPECT/CT imaging.

CONCLUSION

With the aid of [123I]I-PSMA-7 and via cpm-based biopsy, we can reduce the number of biopsies to a minimum operation. [123I]I-PSMA-7 PSMA SPECT/CT can also provide good imaging results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical trial registry ChiCTR2300069745, Registered 24 March 2023.

Novel non-MRI imaging techniques for primary diagnosis of prostate cancer: micro-ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, elastography, multiparametric ultrasound, and PSMA PET/CT

BACKGROUND

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) provides enhanced diagnostic accuracy in the detection of prostate cancer, but is not devoid of limitations. Given the recent evolution of non-MRI imaging techniques, this critical review of the literature aimed at summarizing the available evidence on ultrasound-based and nuclear medicine imaging technologies in the initial diagnosis of PCa.

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed®, Web of Science™, and Scopus®) were queried for studies examining their diagnostic performance in the primary diagnosis of PCa, weighted against a histological confirmation of PCa diagnosis, using a free-text protocol. Retrospective and prospective studies, both comparative and non-comparative, systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) were included. Based on authors' expert opinion, studies were selected, data extracted, and results qualitatively described.

RESULTS

Micro-ultrasound (micro-US) appears as an appealing diagnostic strategy given its high accuracy in detection of PCa, apparently non-inferior to mpMRI. The use of multiparametric US (mpUS) likely gives an advantage in terms of effectiveness coming from the combination of different modalities, especially when certain modalities are combined. Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET/CT may represent a whole-body, one-step approach for appropriate diagnosis and staging of PCa. The direct relationship between lesions avidity of radiotracers and histopathologic and prognostic features, and its valid diagnostic performance represents appealing characteristics. However, intrinsic limits of each of these techniques exist and further research is needed before definitively considering them reliable tools for accurate PCa diagnosis. Other novel technologies, such as elastography and multiparametric US, currently relies on a limited number of studies, and therefore evidence about them remains preliminary.

CONCLUSION

Evidence on the role of non-MRI imaging options in the primary diagnosis of PCa is steadily building up. This testifies a growing interest towards novel technologies that might allow overcoming some of the limitations of current gold standard MRI imaging.

Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials extension for Artificial Intelligence interventions (CONSORT-AI) was published in September 2020. Since its publication, several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of AI interventions have been published but their completeness and transparency of reporting is unknown. This systematic review assesses the completeness of reporting of AI RCTs following publication of CONSORT-AI and provides a comprehensive summary of RCTs published in recent years. 65 RCTs were identified, mostly conducted in China (37%) and USA (18%). Median concordance with CONSORT-AI reporting was 90% (IQR 77-94%), although only 10 RCTs explicitly reported its use. Several items were consistently under-reported, including algorithm version, accessibility of the AI intervention or code, and references to a study protocol. Only 3 of 52 included journals explicitly endorsed or mandated CONSORT-AI. Despite a generally high concordance amongst recent AI RCTs, some AI-specific considerations remain systematically poorly reported. Further encouragement of CONSORT-AI adoption by journals and funders may enable more complete adoption of the full CONSORT-AI guidelines.

Do we need MRI in all biopsy naïve patients? A multicenter cohort analysis

PURPOSE

The combined approach (CB) of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided biopsy (TB) and systematic biopsy (SB) is strongly recommended based on numerous studies in biopsy naïve men with suspicion of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCA). However, the unbalanced accessibility of MRI, challenges related to reimbursement and the scarcity of specialized medical practitioners continue to impede a widespread implementation. Therefore, our objective was to determine a subset of men that could undergo SB without an increased risk of underdiagnosis at reduced expenses.

METHODS

A multicenter analysis of 2714 men with confirmed PCA and suspicious MRI who underwent CB were enrolled. Cancer detection rates were compared between the different biopsy routes SB, TB and CB using McNemar paired test. Additionally, Gleason grade up- and down-grading was determined.

RESULTS

CB detected more csPCA than TB and SB (p < 0.001), irrespective of MRI findings or biopsy route (transperineal vs. transrectal). Thereby, single biopsy approaches misgraded > 50% of csPCA. TB showed higher diagnostic efficiency, defined as csPCA detection per biopsy core than CB and SB (p < 0.001). For patients with abnormal DRE and PSA levels > 12.5 ng/ml, PSAD > 0.35 ng/ml/cm3, or > 75 years, SB and CB showed similar csPCA detection rates.

CONCLUSION

Conducting CB provides the highest level of diagnostic certainty and minimizes the risk of underdiagnosis in almost all biopsy-naive men. However, in patients with suspicious DRE and high PSA levels, PSAD, or advanced age solely using SB leads to similar csPCA detection rates. Thus, a reduced biopsy protocol may be considered for these men in case resources are limited.

Current Approach to Complications and Difficulties during Transrectal Ultrasound-Guided Prostate Biopsies

Prostate cancer is one of the most common male malignancies worldwide. It affects middle-aged men (45-60 years) and is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in Western countries. The TRUS (trans rectal ultrasound)-guided prostate biopsy has been a standard procedure in prostate cancer detection for more than thirty years, and it is recommended in male patients with an abnormal PSA (prostate-specific antigens) or abnormalities found during digital rectal examinations. During this procedure, urologists might encounter difficulties which may cause subsequent complications. This manuscript aims to present both the complications and the technical difficulties that may occur during TRUS-guided prostate biopsy, along with resolutions and solutions found in the specialized literature. The conclusions of this manuscript will note that the TRUS-guided prostate biopsy remains a solid, cost-efficient, and safe procedure with which to diagnose prostate cancer. The complications are usually self-limiting and do not require additional medical assistance. The difficulties posed by the procedure can be safely overcome if there are no other available alternatives. Open communication with the patients improves both pre- and post-procedure compliance.

[Digitalization in urology-challenge and opportunity]

Digitalization is changing medicine. In Germany these changes are not highly accepted yet. Medical pathways should be supported and become safer by digital transformation. Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) applications are increasingly used in medicine. Only time will tell whether these will decrease the workload and make patient treatment easier, while increasing precision and individualization.. Urology must accept the upcoming new challenges. This can best be done by participating in the development.

Artificial Intelligence in Urooncology: What We Have and What We Expect

INTRODUCTION

Artificial intelligence is transforming healthcare by driving innovation, automation, and optimization across various fields of medicine. The aim of this study was to determine whether artificial intelligence (AI) techniques can be used in the diagnosis, treatment planning, and monitoring of urological cancers.

METHODOLOGY

We conducted a thorough search for original and review articles published until 31 May 2022 in the PUBMED/Scopus database. Our search included several terms related to AI and urooncology. Articles were selected with the consensus of all authors.

RESULTS

Several types of AI can be used in the medical field. The most common forms of AI are machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), neural networks (NNs), natural language processing (NLP) systems, and computer vision. AI can improve various domains related to the management of urologic cancers, such as imaging, grading, and nodal staging. AI can also help identify appropriate diagnoses, treatment options, and even biomarkers. In the majority of these instances, AI is as accurate as or sometimes even superior to medical doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

AI techniques have the potential to revolutionize the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of urologic cancers. The use of AI in urooncology care is expected to increase in the future, leading to improved patient outcomes and better overall management of these tumors.

Radiomics vs radiologist in prostate cancer. Results from a systematic review

PURPOSE

Radiomics in uro-oncology is a rapidly evolving science proving to be a novel approach for optimizing the analysis of massive data from medical images to provide auxiliary guidance in clinical issues. This scoping review aimed to identify key aspects wherein radiomics can potentially improve the accuracy of diagnosis, staging, and extraprostatic extension in prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

The literature search was performed on June 2022 using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. Studies were included if radiomics were compared with radiological reports only.

RESULTS

Seventeen papers were included. The combination of PIRADS and radiomics score models improves the PIRADS score reporting of 2 and 3 lesions even in the peripheral zone. Multiparametric MRI-based radiomics models suggest that by simply omitting diffusion contrast enhancement imaging in radiomics models can simplify the process of analysis of clinically significant PCa by PIRADS. Radiomics features correlated with the Gleason grade with excellent discriminative ability. Radiomics has higher accuracy in predicting not only the presence but also the side of extraprostatic extension.

CONCLUSIONS

Radiomics research on PCa mainly uses MRI as an imaging modality and is focused on diagnosis and risk stratification and has the best future possibility of improving PIRADS reporting. Radiomics has established its superiority over radiologist-reported outcomes but the variability has to be taken into consideration before translating it to clinical practice.

The Diagnostic Value of Artificial Intelligence Ultrasound S-Detect Technology for Thyroid Nodules

This study aimed to evaluate the consistency of ultrasound TI-RADS classification used by sonographers with different ultrasound diagnosis experience in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules and the diagnostic value of using artificial intelligence ultrasound S-Detect technology in the differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid lesions. 100 patients who underwent ultrasound examination of thyroid masses in our hospital from June 2019 to June 2021 and were further punctured or operated on were included in the study. Pathological results were used as the gold standard to evaluate ultrasound S-Detect technology and the value of TI-RADS classification and the combined application of the two in diagnosing benign and malignant thyroid TI-RADS 4 types of nodules, and the consistency of judgments of doctors of different ages is assessed by a Kappa value. There were 128 nodules in 100 patients, 51 benign nodules, and 77 malignant nodules. For senior physicians, the sensitivity of diagnosis using TI-RADS classification combined with ultrasound S-Detect technology is 93.5%, specificity is 94.1%, and accuracy is 93.8%; for middle-aged physicians using TI-RADS classification combined with ultrasound S-Detect technology for diagnosis, the sensitivity is 89.6%, specificity is 92.2%, and accuracy is 90.6%; for junior doctors, the sensitivity of diagnosis using TI-RADS classification combined with ultrasound S-Detect technology is 83.1%, specificity is 88.2%, and accuracy is 85.1%. Regardless of seniority, the combined application of artificial intelligence ultrasound S-Detect technology and TI-RADS classification can improve the diagnostic ability of sonographers for thyroid nodules and at the same time improve the consistency of judgment among physicians, and this is especially important for radiologists.

Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Prostate Cancer

As medical science and technology progress towards the era of "big data", a multi-dimensional dataset pertaining to medical diagnosis and treatment is becoming accessible for mathematical modelling. However, these datasets are frequently inconsistent, noisy, and often characterized by a significant degree of redundancy. Thus, extensive data processing is widely advised to clean the dataset before feeding it into the mathematical model. In this context, Artificial intelligence (AI) techniques, including machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms based on artificial neural networks (ANNs) and their types, are being used to produce a precise and cross-sectional illustration of clinical data. For prostate cancer patients, datasets derived from the prostate-specific antigen (PSA), MRI-guided biopsies, genetic biomarkers, and the Gleason grading are primarily used for diagnosis, risk stratification, and patient monitoring. However, recording diagnoses and further stratifying risks based on such diagnostic data frequently involves much subjectivity. Thus, implementing an AI algorithm on a PC's diagnostic data can reduce the subjectivity of the process and assist in decision making. In addition, AI is used to cut down the processing time and help with early detection, which provides a superior outcome in critical cases of prostate cancer. Furthermore, this also facilitates offering the service at a lower cost by reducing the amount of human labor. Herein, the prime objective of this review is to provide a deep analysis encompassing the existing AI algorithms that are being deployed in the field of prostate cancer (PC) for diagnosis and treatment. Based on the available literature, AI-powered technology has the potential for extensive growth and penetration in PC diagnosis and treatment to ease and expedite the existing medical process.