Computer aided detection in prostate cancer diagnostics: A promising alternative to biopsy? A retrospective study from 104 lesions with histological ground truth

Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Ultrasound (US) technology has recently made advances that have led to the development of modalities including elastography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. The use of different US modalities in combination may increase the accuracy of PCa diagnosis. This study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound (mpUS) in the PCa diagnosis.

METHODS

Through September 2023, we searched through Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrial.gov, and Google Scholar for relevant studies. We used standard methods recommended for meta-analyses of diagnostic evaluation. We plot the SROC curve, which stands for summary receiver operating characteristic. To determine how confounding factors affected the results, meta-regression analysis was used.

RESULTS

Finally, 1004 patients from 8 studies that were included in this research were examined. The diagnostic odds ratio for PCa was 20 (95% confidence interval (CI), 8-49) and the pooled estimates of mpUS for diagnosis were as follows: sensitivity, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81-0.93); specificity, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.59-0.83); positive predictive value, 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63-0.87); and negative predictive value, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.71-0.93). The area under the SROC curve was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86-0.92). There was a significant heterogeneity among the studies (p < 0.01). According to meta-regression, both the sensitivity and specificity of mpUS in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) were inferior to any PCa.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic accuracy of mpUS in the diagnosis of PCa is moderate, but the accuracy in the diagnosis of csPCa is significantly lower than any PCa. More relevant research is needed in the future.

CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

This study provides urologists and sonographers with useful data by summarizing the accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound in the detection of prostate cancer.

KEY POINTS

• Recent studies focused on the role of multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. • This meta-analysis revealed that multiparametric ultrasound has moderate diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer. • The diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric ultrasound in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer is significantly lower than any prostate cancer.

Deep-Learning Models for Detection and Localization of Visible Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer on Multi-Parametric MRI

BACKGROUND

Deep learning for diagnosing clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) is feasible but needs further evaluation in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels of 4-10 ng/mL.

PURPOSE

To explore diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), alone and in combination with T2-weighted imaging (T2WI), for deep-learning-based models to detect and localize visible csPCa.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

POPULATION

One thousand six hundred twenty-eight patients with systematic and cognitive-targeted biopsy-confirmation (1007 csPCa, 621 non-csPCa) were divided into model development (N = 1428) and hold-out test (N = 200) datasets.

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

DWI with diffusion-weighted single-shot gradient echo planar imaging sequence and T2WI with T2-weighted fast spin echo sequence at 3.0-T and 1.5-T.

ASSESSMENT

The ground truth of csPCa was annotated by two radiologists in consensus. A diffusion model, DWI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) as input, and a biparametric model (DWI, ADC, and T2WI as input) were trained based on U-Net. Three radiologists provided the PI-RADS (version 2.1) assessment. The performances were determined at the lesion, location, and the patient level.

STATISTICAL TESTS

The performance was evaluated using the areas under the ROC curves (AUCs), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The lesion-level sensitivities of the diffusion model, the biparametric model, and the PI-RADS assessment were 89.0%, 85.3%, and 90.8% (P = 0.289-0.754). At the patient level, the diffusion model had significantly higher sensitivity than the biparametric model (96.0% vs. 90.0%), while there was no significant difference in specificity (77.0%. vs. 85.0%, P = 0.096). For location analysis, there were no significant differences in AUCs between the models (sextant-level, 0.895 vs. 0.893, P = 0.777; zone-level, 0.931 vs. 0.917, P = 0.282), and both models had significantly higher AUCs than the PI-RADS assessment (sextant-level, 0.734; zone-level, 0.863).

DATA CONCLUSION

The diffusion model achieved the best performance in detecting and localizing csPCa in patients with PSA levels of 4-10 ng/mL.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Characterization of high-grade prostate cancer at multiparametric MRI using a radiomic-based computer-aided diagnosis system as standalone and second reader

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to develop and test across various scanners a zone-specific region-of-interest (ROI)-based computer-aided diagnosis system (CAD) aimed at characterizing, on MRI, International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade≥2 prostate cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ROI-based quantitative models were selected in multi-vendor training (265 pre-prostatectomy MRIs) and pre-test (112 pre-biopsy MRIs) datasets. The best peripheral and transition zone models were combined and retrospectively assessed in internal (158 pre-biopsy MRIs) and external (104 pre-biopsy MRIs) test datasets. Two radiologists (R1/R2) retrospectively delineated the lesions targeted at biopsy in test datasets. The CAD area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for characterizing ISUP≥2 cancers was compared to that of the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System version2 (PI-RADSv2) score prospectively assigned to targeted lesions.

RESULTS

The best models used the 25th apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) percentile in transition zone and the 2nd ADC percentile and normalized wash-in rate in peripheral zone. The PI-RADSv2 AUCs were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 74-87) and 86% (95% CI: 81-91) in the internal and external test datasets respectively. They were not different from the CAD AUCs obtained with R1 and R2 delineations, in the internal (82% [95% CI: 76-89], P = 0.95 and 85% [95% CI: 78-91], P = 0.55) and external (82% [95% CI: 74-91], P = 0.41 and 86% [95% CI:78-95], P = 0.98) test datasets. The CAD yielded sensitivities of 86-89% and 90-91%, and specificities of 64-65% and 69-75% in the internal and external test datasets respectively.

CONCLUSION

The CAD performance for characterizing ISUP grade≥2 prostate cancers on MRI is not different from that of PI-RADSv2 score across two test datasets.

Surveillance Value of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Maps: Multiparametric MRI in Active Surveillance of Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study aims to establish the value of apparent diffusion coefficient maps and other magnetic resonance sequences for active surveillance of prostate cancer. The study included 530 men with an average age of 66, who were under surveillance for prostate cancer. We have used multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with subsequent transperineal biopsy (TPB) to verify the imaging findings.

RESULTS

We have observed a level of agreement of 67.30% between the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, other magnetic resonance sequences, and the biopsy results. The sensitivity of the apparent diffusion coefficient is 97.14%, and the specificity is 37.50%. According to our data, apparent diffusion coefficient is the most accurate sequence, followed by diffusion imaging in prostate cancer detection.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our findings we advocate that the apparent diffusion coefficient should be included as an essential part of magnetic resonance scanning protocols for prostate cancer in at least bi-parametric settings. The best option will be apparent diffusion coefficient combined with diffusion imaging and T2 sequences. Further large-scale prospective controlled studies are required to define the precise role of multiparametric and bi-parametric magnetic resonance in the active surveillance of prostate cancer.

Computer-aided diagnosis in prostate cancer: a retrospective evaluation of the Watson Elementary® system for preoperative tumor characterization in patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) may improve prostate cancer (PCa) detection and support multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) readers for better characterization. We evaluated Watson Elementary^® (WE^®) CAD system results referring to definitive pathological examination in patients treated with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in a tertiary referral center.

METHODS

Patients treated with RARP between 2020 and 2021 were selected. WE^® calculates the Malignancy Attention Index (MAI), starting from the information contained in the mpMRI images. Outcome measures were the capability to predict the presence of PCa, to correctly locate the dominant lesion, to delimit the largest diameter of the dominant lesion, and to predict the extraprostatic extension (EPE).

RESULTS

Overall, tumor presence was confirmed in 46 (92%) WE^® highly suspicious areas, while it was confirmed in 43 (86%) mpMRI PI-RADS ≥ 4 lesions. The WE^® showed a positive agreement with mpMRI of 92%. In 98% of cases, visible tumor at WE^® showed that the highly suspicious areas were within the same prostate sector of the dominant tumor nodule at pathology. WE^® showed a 2.5 mm median difference of diameter with pathology, compared with a 3.8 mm of mpMRI versus pathology (p = 0.019). In prediction of EPE, WE^® and mpMRI showed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value of 0.81 vs 0.71, 0.56 vs 0.60, 0.88 vs 0.85 and 0.42 vs 0.40, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The WE^® system resulted accurate in the PCa dominant lesion detection, localization and delimitation providing additional information concerning EPE prediction.

The Low Rate of Adherence to Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Criteria Among Published Prostate MRI Artificial Intelligence Algorithms

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rigor, generalizability, and reproducibility of published classification and detection artificial intelligence (AI) models for prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) guidelines, a 42-item checklist that is considered a measure of best practice for presenting and reviewing medical imaging AI research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review searched English literature for studies proposing PCa AI detection and classification models on MRI. Each study was evaluated with the CLAIM checklist. The additional outcomes for which data were sought included measures of AI model performance (eg, area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, free-response operating characteristic curves), training and validation and testing group sample size, AI approach, detection versus classification AI, public data set utilization, MRI sequences used, and definition of gold standard for ground truth. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment was used to stratify studies into quartiles. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for pair-wise comparisons.

RESULTS

In all, 75 studies were identified, and 53 studies qualified for analysis. The original CLAIM items that most studies did not fulfill includes item 12 (77% no): de-identification methods; item 13 (68% no): handling missing data; item 15 (47% no): rationale for choosing ground truth reference standard; item 18 (55% no): measurements of inter- and intrareader variability; item 31 (60% no): inclusion of validated interpretability maps; item 37 (92% no): inclusion of failure analysis to elucidate AI model weaknesses. An AUC score versus percentage CLAIM fulfillment quartile revealed a significant difference of the mean AUC scores between quartile 1 versus quartile 2 (0.78 versus 0.86, P = .034) and quartile 1 versus quartile 4 (0.78 versus 0.89, P = .003) scores. Based on additional information and outcome metrics gathered in this study, additional measures of best practice are defined. These new items include disclosure of public dataset usage, ground truth definition in comparison to other referenced works in the defined task, and sample size power calculation.

CONCLUSION

A large proportion of AI studies do not fulfill key items in CLAIM guidelines within their methods and results sections. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment is weakly associated with improved AI model performance. Additions or supplementations to CLAIM are recommended to improve publishing standards and aid reviewers in determining study rigor.

AutoProstate: Towards Automated Reporting of Prostate MRI for Prostate Cancer Assessment Using Deep Learning

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate is used by radiologists to identify, score, and stage abnormalities that may correspond to clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPCa). Automatic assessment of prostate mpMRI using artificial intelligence algorithms may facilitate a reduction in missed cancers and unnecessary biopsies, an increase in inter-observer agreement between radiologists, and an improvement in reporting quality. In this work, we introduce AutoProstate, a deep learning-powered framework for automatic MRI-based prostate cancer assessment. AutoProstate comprises of three modules: Zone-Segmenter, CSPCa-Segmenter, and Report-Generator. Zone-Segmenter segments the prostatic zones on T2-weighted imaging, CSPCa-Segmenter detects and segments CSPCa lesions using biparametric MRI, and Report-Generator generates an automatic web-based report containing four sections: Patient Details, Prostate Size and PSA Density, Clinically Significant Lesion Candidates, and Findings Summary. In our experiment, AutoProstate was trained using the publicly available PROSTATEx dataset, and externally validated using the PICTURE dataset. Moreover, the performance of AutoProstate was compared to the performance of an experienced radiologist who prospectively read PICTURE dataset cases. In comparison to the radiologist, AutoProstate showed statistically significant improvements in prostate volume and prostate-specific antigen density estimation. Furthermore, AutoProstate matched the CSPCa lesion detection sensitivity of the radiologist, which is paramount, but produced more false positive detections.

Artificial Intelligence Compared to Radiologists for the Initial Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer on Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Systematic Review and Recommendations for Future Studies

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of prostate cancer on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI), using artificial intelligence (AI), may reduce missed cancers and unnecessary biopsies, increase inter-observer agreement between radiologists, and alleviate pressures caused by rising case incidence and a shortage of specialist radiologists to read prostate mpMRI. However, well-designed evaluation studies are required to prove efficacy above current clinical practice. A systematic search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and arXiv electronic databases was conducted for studies that compared CAD for prostate cancer detection or classification on MRI against radiologist interpretation and a histopathological reference standard, in treatment-naïve men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer. Twenty-seven studies were included in the final analysis. Due to substantial heterogeneities in the included studies, a narrative synthesis is presented. Several studies reported superior diagnostic accuracy for CAD over radiologist interpretation on small, internal patient datasets, though this was not observed in the few studies that performed evaluation using external patient data. Our review found insufficient evidence to suggest the clinical deployment of artificial intelligence algorithms at present. Further work is needed to develop and enforce methodological standards, promote access to large diverse datasets, and conduct prospective evaluations before clinical adoption can be considered.

Computer-aided diagnosis of prostate cancer using multiparametric MRI and clinical features: A patient-level classification framework

Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) of prostate cancer (PCa) using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is actively being investigated as a means to provide clinical decision support to radiologists. Typically, these systems are trained using lesion annotations. However, lesion annotations are expensive to obtain and inadequate for characterizing certain tumor types e.g. diffuse tumors and MRI invisible tumors. In this work, we introduce a novel patient-level classification framework, denoted PCF, that is trained using patient-level labels only. In PCF, features are extracted from three-dimensional mpMRI and derived parameter maps using convolutional neural networks and subsequently, combined with clinical features by a multi-classifier support vector machine scheme. The output of PCF is a probability value that indicates whether a patient is harboring clinically significant PCa (Gleason score ≥3+4) or not. PCF achieved mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.79 and 0.86 on the PICTURE and PROSTATEx datasets respectively, using five-fold cross-validation. Clinical evaluation over a temporally separated PICTURE dataset cohort demonstrated comparable sensitivity and specificity to an experienced radiologist. We envision PCF finding most utility as a second reader during routine diagnosis or as a triage tool to identify low-risk patients who do not require a clinical read.

Diagnostic accuracy of different computer-aided diagnostic systems for prostate cancer based on magnetic resonance imaging: A systematic review with diagnostic meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CAD) system for accurate and automated prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis have been developed, however, the diagnostic test accuracy of different CAD systems is still controversial. This systematic review aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CAD systems based on magnetic resonance imaging for PCa.

METHODS

Cochrane library, PubMed, EMBASE and China Biology Medicine disc were systematically searched until March 2019 for original diagnostic studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies on CAD based on magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis of PCa and extracted the requisite data. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve were calculated to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of CAD system.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 1945 patients were included in our analysis. The diagnostic meta-analysis showed that overall sensitivity of CAD system ranged from 0.47 to 1.00 and, specificity from 0.47 to 0.89. The pooled sensitivity of CAD system was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.76-0.94), pooled specificity 0.76 (95% CI: 0.62-0.85), and the area under curve (AUC) 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91). Subgroup analysis showed that the support vector machines produced the best AUC among the CAD classifiers, with sensitivity ranging from 0.87 to 0.92, and specificity from 0.47 to 0.95. Among different zones of prostate, CAD system produced the best AUC in the transitional zone than the peripheral zone and central gland; sensitivity ranged from 0.89 to 1.00, and specificity from 0.38 to 0.85.

CONCLUSIONS

CAD system can help improve the diagnostic accuracy of PCa especially using the support vector machines classifier. Whether the performance of the CAD system depends on the specific locations of the prostate needs further investigation.

Fusion US/MRI prostate biopsy using a computer aided diagnostic (CAD) system

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of computer aided diagnostic (CAD) system on the detection rate of prostate cancer (PCa) in a series of fusion prostate biopsy (FPB).

METHODS

Two prospective transperineal FPB series (with or without CAD assistance) were analyzed and PCa detection rates compared with per-patient and per-target analyses. The χ² and Mann-Whitney test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were applied to identify predictors of any and clinically significant (cs) PCa detection. Subgroup analyses were performed after stratifying for PI-RADS Score and lesion location.

RESULTS

Out of 183 FPB, 89 were performed with CAD assistance. At per-patient analysis the detection rate of any PCa and of cs PCa were 56.3% and 30.6%, respectively; the aid of CAD was negligible for either any PCa or csPCa detection rates (P=0.45 and P=0.99, respectively). Conversely in a per-target analysis, CAD-assisted biopsy had significantly higher positive predictive value (PPV) for any PCa versus MRI-only group (58% vs. 37.8%, P=0.001). PI-RADS Score was the only independent predictor of any and csPCa, either in per-patient or per-target multivariable regression analysis (all P<0.029). In a subgroup per-patient analysis of anterior/transitional zone lesions, csPCa detection rate was significantly higher in the CAD cohort (54.5%vs.11.1%, respectively; P=0.028), and CAD assistance was the only predictor of csPCa detection (P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

CAD assistance for FPB seems to improve detection of csPCa located in anterior/transitional zone. Enhanced identification and improved contouring of lesions may justify higher diagnostic performance.

Prostate Cancer Detection in Screening Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Artificial Intelligence

Background:

Prostate cancer is a leading cause of death among men who do not participate in a screening programme. MRI forms a possible alternative for prostate analysis of a higher level of sensitivity than the PSA test or biopsy. Magnetic resonance is a non-invasive method and magnetic resonance tomography produces a large amount of data. If a screening programme were implemented, a dramatic increase in radiologist workload and patient waiting time will follow. Computer Aided-Diagnose (CAD) could assist radiologists to decrease reading times and cost, and increase diagnostic effectiveness. CAD mimics radiologist and imaging guidelines to detect prostate cancer.

Aim:

The purpose of this study was to analyse and describe current research in MRI prostate examination with the aid of CAD. The aim was to determine if CAD systems form a reliable method for use in prostate screening.

Methods:

This study was conducted as a systematic literature review of current scientific articles. Selection of articles was carried out using the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and for Meta-Analysis” (PRISMA). Summaries were created from reviewed articles and were then categorised into relevant data for results.

Results:

CAD has shown that its capability concerning sensitivity or specificity is higher than a radiologist. A CAD system can reach a peak sensitivity of 100% and two CAD systems showed a specificity of 100%. CAD systems are highly specialised and chiefly focus on the peripheral zone, which could mean missing cancer in the transition zone. CAD systems can segment the prostate with the same effectiveness as a radiologist.

Conclusion:

When CAD analysed clinically-significant tumours with a Gleason score greater than 6, CAD outperformed radiologists. However, their focus on the peripheral zone would require the use of more than one CAD system to analyse the entire prostate.

The role of gadolinium in magnetic resonance imaging for early prostate cancer diagnosis: A diagnostic accuracy study

Objective

Prostate lesions detected with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) are classified for their malignant potential according to the Prostate Imaging-Reporting And Data System (PI-RADS™2). In this study, we evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI with and without gadolinium, with emphasis on the added diagnostic value of the dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE).

Materials and methods

The study was retrospective for 286 prostate lesions / 213 eligible patients, n = 116/170, and 49/59% malignant for the peripheral (Pz) and transitional zone (Tz), respectively. A stereotactic MRI-guided prostate biopsy served as the histological ground truth. All patients received a mpMRI with DCE. The influence of DCE in the prediction of malignancy was analyzed by blinded assessment of the imaging protocol without DCE and the DCE separately.

Results

Significant (CSPca) and insignificant (IPca) prostate cancers were evaluated separately to enhance the potential effects of the DCE in the detection of CSPca. The Receiver Operating Characteristics Area Under Curve (ROC-AUC), sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Spe) of PIRADS-without-DCE in the Pz was 0.70/0.47/0.86 for all cancers (IPca and CSPca merged) and 0.73/0.54/0.82 for CSPca. PIRADS-with-DCE for the same patients showed ROC-AUC/Se/Spe of 0.70/0.49/0.86 for all Pz cancers and 0.69/0.54/0.81 for CSPca in the Pz, respectively, p>0.05 chi-squared test. Similar results for the Tz, AUC/Se/Spe for PIRADS-without-DCE was 0.75/0.61/0.79 all cancers and 0.67/0.54/0.71 for CSPca, not influenced by DCE (0.66/0.47/0.81 for all Tz cancers and 0.61/0.39/0.75 for CSPca in Tz). The added Se and Spe of DCE for the detection of CSPca was 88/34% and 78/33% in the Pz and Tz, respectively.

Conclusion

DCE showed no significant added diagnostic value and lower specificity for the prediction of CSPca compared to the non-enhanced sequences. Our results support that gadolinium might be omitted without mitigating the diagnostic accuracy of the mpMRI for prostate cancer.

Cancer diagnosis through a tandem of classifiers for digitized histopathological slides

The current research study is concerned with the automated differentiation between histopathological slides from colon tissues with respect to four classes (healthy tissue and cancerous of grades 1, 2 or 3) through an optimized ensemble of predictors. Six distinct classifiers with prediction accuracies ranging from 87% to 95% are considered for the task. The proposed method of combining them takes into account the probabilities of the individual classifiers for each sample to be assigned to any of the four classes, optimizes weights for each technique by differential evolution and attains an accuracy that is significantly better than the individual results. Moreover, a degree of confidence is defined that would allow the pathologists to separate the data into two distinct sets, one that is correctly classified with a high level of confidence and the rest that would need their further attention. The tandem is also validated on other benchmark data sets. The proposed methodology proves to be efficient in improving the classification accuracy of each algorithm taken separately and performs reasonably well on other data sets, even with default weights. In addition, by establishing a degree of confidence the method becomes more viable for use by actual practitioners.

PROSTATEx Challenges for computerized classification of prostate lesions from multiparametric magnetic resonance images

Grand challenges stimulate advances within the medical imaging research community; within a competitive yet friendly environment, they allow for a direct comparison of algorithms through a well-defined, centralized infrastructure. The tasks of the two-part PROSTATEx Challenges (the PROSTATEx Challenge and the PROSTATEx-2 Challenge) are (1) the computerized classification of clinically significant prostate lesions and (2) the computerized determination of Gleason Grade Group in prostate cancer, both based on multiparametric magnetic resonance images. The challenges incorporate well-vetted cases for training and testing, a centralized performance assessment process to evaluate results, and an established infrastructure for case dissemination, communication, and result submission. In the PROSTATEx Challenge, 32 groups apply their computerized methods (71 methods total) to 208 prostate lesions in the test set. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for these methods in the task of differentiating between lesions that are and are not clinically significant ranged from 0.45 to 0.87; statistically significant differences in performance among the top-performing methods, however, are not observed. In the PROSTATEx-2 Challenge, 21 groups apply their computerized methods (43 methods total) to 70 prostate lesions in the test set. When compared with the reference standard, the quadratic-weighted kappa values for these methods in the task of assigning a five-point Gleason Grade Group to each lesion range from - 0.24 to 0.27; superiority to random guessing can be established for only two methods. When approached with a sense of commitment and scientific rigor, challenges foster interest in the designated task and encourage innovation in the field.