Shiguang Liu, Mohsin Jamal, Carmen Smotherman, Ifra Badar, Zoobia Khan, Shahla Masood
{"title":"The potential use of artificial intelligence in reviewing atypical small acinar proliferation in prostate core biopsy.","authors":"Shiguang Liu, Mohsin Jamal, Carmen Smotherman, Ifra Badar, Zoobia Khan, Shahla Masood","doi":"10.1007/s00428-025-04136-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prostate cancer is the most common diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. The gold standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is the examination of tissue from a systemic 12- or 14-core biopsy procedure by an anatomic pathologist. Atypical small acinar proliferation in prostate core biopsy is an indefinite diagnosis, and may cause difficulties in clinical management. To investigate the potential use of artificial intelligence in reviewing atypical small acinar proliferation, Paige Prostate, an FDA-approved artificial intelligence-based digital diagnostic system, was used to review the digital images of 107 cores with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Two pathologists blindly reclassified the cores with a new diagnosis (either benign or malignant) for 85% of the cases (pathologist #1) and 88% (pathologist #2), respectively. Paige Prostate resulted in consistent diagnosis in 85% of the cores (\"suspicious\" or \"not suspicious\"). The consistency rates were 77% between the two pathologists, 66% and 75% between Paige Prostate and each pathologist. There was statistically significant agreement among the three consistency rates. Although some degree of interobserver discrepancy still exists, our findings indicate that artificial intelligence was compatible with the pathologist review, and it can be a unique diagnostic adjunct for pathologists.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-025-04136-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Prostate cancer is the most common diagnosed cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men in the United States. The gold standard for the diagnosis of prostate cancer is the examination of tissue from a systemic 12- or 14-core biopsy procedure by an anatomic pathologist. Atypical small acinar proliferation in prostate core biopsy is an indefinite diagnosis, and may cause difficulties in clinical management. To investigate the potential use of artificial intelligence in reviewing atypical small acinar proliferation, Paige Prostate, an FDA-approved artificial intelligence-based digital diagnostic system, was used to review the digital images of 107 cores with an initial diagnosis of atypical small acinar proliferation. Two pathologists blindly reclassified the cores with a new diagnosis (either benign or malignant) for 85% of the cases (pathologist #1) and 88% (pathologist #2), respectively. Paige Prostate resulted in consistent diagnosis in 85% of the cores ("suspicious" or "not suspicious"). The consistency rates were 77% between the two pathologists, 66% and 75% between Paige Prostate and each pathologist. There was statistically significant agreement among the three consistency rates. Although some degree of interobserver discrepancy still exists, our findings indicate that artificial intelligence was compatible with the pathologist review, and it can be a unique diagnostic adjunct for pathologists.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.