Evaluating an AI-driven Triaging Workflow for MRI-based Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Simulation Study.

IF 7.2 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Jasper J Twilt, Anindo Saha, Joeran S Bosma, Gianluca Giannarini, Anwar R Padhani, Derya Yakar, Mattijs Elschot, Jeroen Veltman, Jurgen Fütterer, Henkjan Huisman, Maarten de Rooij
{"title":"Evaluating an AI-driven Triaging Workflow for MRI-based Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Diagnosis: A Simulation Study.","authors":"Jasper J Twilt, Anindo Saha, Joeran S Bosma, Gianluca Giannarini, Anwar R Padhani, Derya Yakar, Mattijs Elschot, Jeroen Veltman, Jurgen Fütterer, Henkjan Huisman, Maarten de Rooij","doi":"10.1148/rycan.250461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Purpose To simulate an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven triaging workflow in which an AI system, using high-confidence thresholds, assesses a subset of prostate MRI examinations for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), compare the assessment with stand-alone radiologists, and evaluate the number of examinations triaged by the AI to estimate potential workload reduction. Materials and Methods Data from an international AI confirmatory study (February 2022-November 2023) were used in this retrospective study. MRI examinations of 500 men with suspected csPCa from four European centers were included. Exclusion criteria were prior prostate treatment, prior csPCa, or considerable imaging artifacts. AI-triaging thresholds were calibrated on 100 examinations. The AI system assessed examinations exceeding high-specificity or high-sensitivity thresholds, with the remaining examinations deferred to radiologists. The workflow was simulated on 400 examinations, including examinations from an external site, incorporating assessments from 62 radiologists. Reference standards were histopathology and/or 3 or more years of follow-up. Sensitivity and specificity of the triaging workflow were compared with the conventional workflow using multireader, multicase analysis of variance. Results Among the 400 patients (median age, 66 years; IQR, 60-69 years) included for testing, radiologists achieved a sensitivity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.8, 93.1) and specificity of 57.7% (95% CI: 52.3, 63.1). The AI-driven pathway maintained comparable sensitivity (89.0%; 95% CI: 85.0, 93.0; <i>P</i> = .36) but improved specificity by 11.5%, reaching 69.2% (95% CI: 64.4, 74.0; <i>P</i> < .001). The AI system triaged and diagnosed 195 of 400 (49%; 95% CI: 173, 216) examinations with sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI: 89.5, 99.9) and specificity of 94.7% (95% CI: 90.5, 98.9). Conclusion Triaging by this AI system improved simulated diagnostic workflow efficiency without compromising diagnostic accuracy for csPCa. <b>Keywords:</b> Prostate, MRI, Localization, Oncology, Comparative Studies, Diagnosis <i>Supplemental material is available for this article.</i> ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT05489341 © RSNA, 2026.</p>","PeriodicalId":20786,"journal":{"name":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","volume":"8 3","pages":"e250461"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13231206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology. Imaging cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1148/rycan.250461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose To simulate an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven triaging workflow in which an AI system, using high-confidence thresholds, assesses a subset of prostate MRI examinations for clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), compare the assessment with stand-alone radiologists, and evaluate the number of examinations triaged by the AI to estimate potential workload reduction. Materials and Methods Data from an international AI confirmatory study (February 2022-November 2023) were used in this retrospective study. MRI examinations of 500 men with suspected csPCa from four European centers were included. Exclusion criteria were prior prostate treatment, prior csPCa, or considerable imaging artifacts. AI-triaging thresholds were calibrated on 100 examinations. The AI system assessed examinations exceeding high-specificity or high-sensitivity thresholds, with the remaining examinations deferred to radiologists. The workflow was simulated on 400 examinations, including examinations from an external site, incorporating assessments from 62 radiologists. Reference standards were histopathology and/or 3 or more years of follow-up. Sensitivity and specificity of the triaging workflow were compared with the conventional workflow using multireader, multicase analysis of variance. Results Among the 400 patients (median age, 66 years; IQR, 60-69 years) included for testing, radiologists achieved a sensitivity of 89.4% (95% CI: 85.8, 93.1) and specificity of 57.7% (95% CI: 52.3, 63.1). The AI-driven pathway maintained comparable sensitivity (89.0%; 95% CI: 85.0, 93.0; P = .36) but improved specificity by 11.5%, reaching 69.2% (95% CI: 64.4, 74.0; P < .001). The AI system triaged and diagnosed 195 of 400 (49%; 95% CI: 173, 216) examinations with sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI: 89.5, 99.9) and specificity of 94.7% (95% CI: 90.5, 98.9). Conclusion Triaging by this AI system improved simulated diagnostic workflow efficiency without compromising diagnostic accuracy for csPCa. Keywords: Prostate, MRI, Localization, Oncology, Comparative Studies, Diagnosis Supplemental material is available for this article. ClinicalTrials.gov registration no. NCT05489341 © RSNA, 2026.

评估基于mri的具有临床意义的前列腺癌诊断的人工智能驱动的分诊流程:一项模拟研究。
目的模拟人工智能(AI)驱动的分类工作流程,其中人工智能系统使用高置信度阈值评估临床显著前列腺癌(csPCa)的前列腺MRI检查子集,将评估与独立放射科医生进行比较,并评估人工智能分类的检查数量,以估计潜在的工作量减少。材料和方法本回顾性研究的数据来自一项国际人工智能验证性研究(2022年2月- 2023年11月)。本研究纳入了来自欧洲4个中心的500名疑似csPCa患者的MRI检查。排除标准为既往前列腺治疗、既往csPCa或相当大的影像伪影。在100次检查中校准了人工智能分类阈值。人工智能系统对超过高特异性或高灵敏度阈值的检查进行评估,其余检查则交由放射科医生进行。该工作流程模拟了400次检查,包括来自外部站点的检查,并纳入了62名放射科医生的评估。参照标准为组织病理学和/或3年及以上的随访。采用多读卡器、多病例方差分析,比较了分诊工作流程与常规工作流程的敏感性和特异性。结果在纳入检测的400例患者(中位年龄66岁,IQR 60-69岁)中,放射科医生的敏感性为89.4% (95% CI: 85.8, 93.1),特异性为57.7% (95% CI: 52.3, 63.1)。ai驱动途径保持了相当的敏感性(89.0%;95% CI: 85.0, 93.0; P = 0.36),但特异性提高了11.5%,达到69.2% (95% CI: 64.4, 74.0; P < .001)。AI系统对400例检查中的195例(49%;95% CI: 173, 216)进行了分类和诊断,敏感性为94.7% (95% CI: 89.5, 99.9),特异性为94.7% (95% CI: 90.5, 98.9)。结论该人工智能系统在不影响csPCa诊断准确性的前提下,提高了模拟诊断工作流程的效率。关键词:前列腺,MRI,定位,肿瘤学,比较研究,诊断ClinicalTrials.gov注册号:Nct05489341©rsna, 2026。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
2.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书