5 research outputs found
A systematic review and meta-analysis of artificial intelligence diagnostic accuracy in prostate cancer histology identification and grading
No full textBackground: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising tool in pathology, including cancer diagnosis, subtyping, grading, and prognostic prediction. Methods: The aim of the study is to assess AI application in prostate cancer (PCa) histology. We carried out a systematic literature search in 3 databases. Primary outcome was AI accuracy in differentiating between PCa and benign hyperplasia. Secondary outcomes were AI accuracy in determining Gleason grade and agreement among AI and pathologists. Results: Our final sample consists of 24 studies conducted from 2007 to 2021. They aggregate data from roughly 8000 cases of prostate biopsy and 458 cases of radical prostatectomy (RP). Sensitivity for PCa diagnostic exceeded 90% and ranged from 87% to 100%, and specificity varied from 68% to 99%. Overall accuracy ranged from 83.7% to 98.3% with AUC reaching 0.99. The meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method showed pooled sensitivity of 0.96 with I2 = 80.7% and pooled specificity of 0.95 with I2 = 86.1%. Pooled positive likehood ratio was 15.3 with I2 = 87.3% and negative – was 0.04 with I2 = 78.6%. SROC (symmetric receiver operating characteristics) curve represents AUC = 0.99. For grading the accuracy of AI was lower: sensitivity for Gleason grading ranged from 77% to 87%, and specificity from 82% to 90%. Conclusions: The accuracy of AI for PCa identification and grading is comparable to expert pathologists. This is a promising approach which has several possible clinical applications resulting in expedite and optimize pathology reports. AI introduction into common practice may be limited by difficult and time-consuming convolutional neural network training and tuning
Recent advances in transurethral resection of bladder tumors
No full textTransurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT) is a standard procedure in bladder cancer management. TURBT has two main goals: to resect completely all the tumor lesions in healthy tissues and to provide high-quality specimen to facilitate accurate diagnosis. To achieve these goals, urologists make use of several options to maximize the efficiency of the procedure. To make tumor detection as effective as possible, the European Association of Urology guidelines recommend using enhanced visualization methods such as photodynamic diagnostics (PDD) and narrow-band imaging (NBI). Novel en bloc technique enables one to provide specimens of a higher quality and to increase recurrence-free survival. Also, the use of new energy sources such as lasers helps to decrease bleeding and prevent several complications after TURBT, e.g., obturator nerve reflex and bladder perforation. This article summarizes the options available to enhance the TURBT procedure and reports on the latest data on their feasibility for clinical practice
Artificial intelligence in molecular and genomic prostate cancer diagnostics
No full textIntroduction. Many molecular genetic analyses have been proposed to predict the course of prostate cancer (PCa). They have the potential to develop artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms by processing large amounts of data and define connections between them.Objective. To evaluate the possibilities of using artificial intelligence in early diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer.Materials & methods. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the Medline citation database. We have selected papers that provide data on the use of AI in vitro, in vivo and in silico systems to determine biological and genetic markers and/or their relationship to clinical data of PCa-patients from 2020 to 2023. The quantitative synthesis includes 16 articles.Results. AI can identify metabolic and genetic «signature» of PCa, the key elements of signal pathways, thus fulfilling complex tasks in the field of bioinformatics. AI analyses various biomaterials: prostate tissue, blood, and urine. When evaluating prostate tissue for aberrations, AI can help a pathologist. For example, AI can predict the histological status of genes, eliminating the need for IHC or tissue sequencing, significantly reducing the economic cost of predicting the severity of the disease. In most cases, prostate tissue sequencing provides information to the attending physician, allowing the start of optimal treatment, considering the molecular or genetic «signature» of PCa. AI can be used as an alternative to existing population screening tools and a predictive castration-resistant PCa. The use of AI capabilities is more appropriate for blood and urine analysis, procedures that do not require additional economic costs for biomaterial sampling. In theory, this may be more affordable for the patient and the medical institution. It is worth noting that a few studies were conducted in silico (based on the analysis of molecular genetic databases without validation on cell lines or on real patients) and are useful as background information. However, the results can serve as a robust basis for further research in molecular diagnostics and genomics.Conclusion. It is possible to use AI in the search for key metabolites and genes of the elements of signalling pathways, as well as the determination of metastasis potential, because molecular or genetic «signature» of PCa allows the physician to start optimal treatment
Retrospective analysis of prostate cancer detection using mpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsy
No full textIntroduction. Transrectal biopsy under US-control has been standard diagnostic method for prostate cancer (PCa) detection for over 30 years. However, TRUS-guided biopsy is not without well-known drawbacks. MR-targeted biopsy methods were proposed to eliminate the drawbacks and improve detection rate of clinically significant Pca. Cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies have become the most widely used MR-targeted biopsies. However, there are contradictory data on detection of clinically significant Pca when comparing mpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsies.Objective. To compare the detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer performing cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies.Materials and methods. Inclusion criteria: PSA > 2.0 ng/ml and/or a positive DRE, and/or a suspicious lesion on TRUS, and PI-RADSv2.1 score ≥ 3. The outcomes evaluated are the detection of clinically significant Pca (ISUP ≥ 2), the overall PСa detection, the detection of clinically insignificant Pca, histological yield (proportion of positive cores, maximum cancer core length).Results. Retrospective data analysis was performed: cognitive biopsy was performed in 102 patients and mpMR/US-fusion biopsy in 176 patients. The median age was 63 years, prostate volume 46 cc. The median PSA was 6.4 ng/ml in the mpMR/US-fusion and 6.7 ng/ml in the cognitive biopsy group. MpMR/US-fusion and cognitive biopsies were comparable about the detection rate of clinically significant (30.3% vs 25.0%; p=0.329) and overall Pca detection rate (50.5% and 42.1%; p = 0.176). It was detected to be less clinically insignificant Pca in the cognitive biopsy group (11.8% vs. 25.5%; p = 0.007). The proportion of positive cores (30.5% and 29.5% respectively; p = 0.754) and maximum cancer core length (6.6 mm vs 7.6 mm; p = 0.320) were equal when comparing cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies. The proportion of positive cores with clinically significant Pca was higher in the cognitive biopsy group (18.6% vs 13.1%; p = 0.029).Conclusion. Both cognitive and mpMR/US-fusion biopsies are equally accurate for clinically significant Pca detection. Therefore, cognitive biopsy may be an alternative to mpMR/US-fusion biopsy in hospitals where mpMR/US-fusion technology is not currently available
Проспективное исследование выявляемости рака предстательной железы при выполнении мультипараметрической магнитно-резонансной/ ультразвуковой fusion, стандартной и сатурационной биопсии
No full textBackground. Currently, about 80 % of men with low-grade prostate cancer (per ISUP 1 (International Society of Urological Pathology)) have indications for radical treatment. Overdiagnosis of low-grade cancer is associated with the use of systematic biopsy methods (standard transrectal, saturation) under ultrasound control for diagnosis verification. To improve prostate cancer diagnosis, the European Association of Urology (2019) recommended multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before biopsy, and in case of detection of a suspicious lesion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-targeted biopsy. In clinical practice, the most common method of MRI-targeted biopsy is multiparametric MRI ultrasound-guided (mpMRI/US) fusion biopsy. However, some studies show contradictory results in detection of prostate cancer using systematic and MRI-targeted biopsy techniques.Aim. To compare detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (ISUP ≥2) using mpMRI/US fusion, standard, and saturation biopsy.Materials and methods. The study included 96 patients. The following inclusion criteria were applied: prostate-specific antigen >2 ng/mL and/or detection of a suspicious lesion during digital rectal and/or transrectal ultrasound examination, and PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) v.2.1 score ≥3. At the first stage, “unblinded” urologist performed a transperineal mpMRI/US fusion and saturation biopsies. At the second stage, “blinded” urologist performed standard transrectal biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was defined as ISUP ≥2.Results. Median age was 63 years, prostate volume – 47 cm3, prostate-specific antigen – 6.82 ng/mL. MpMRI/US fusion, standard, and saturation biopsies were comparable in regard to the rate of detection of clinically significant (29, 24, 28 %; p = 0.81) and clinically insignificant (25, 26, 35 %; p = 0.43) cancer. Overall prostate cancer detection rates were also similar: 54, 50, 63 %, respectively (p = 0.59). The percentages of positive cores in mpMRI/US fusion, standard, and saturation biopsies were 33, 10 and 13 %, respectively (p <0.01). The maximal core length in mpMRI/US was 6.4 mm, in standard biopsy – 6.35 mm, in saturation biopsy – 5.1 mm (p = 0.7).Conclusion. Detection rates of clinically significant, clinically insignificant prostate cancer and overall detection rate are comparable between systematic biopsy techniques and mpMRI/US fusion biopsy.Введение. В настоящее время до 80 % мужчин с раком предстательной железы (РПЖ) низкой степени злокачественности (ISUP 1 (по классификации Международного общества урологических патологов)) подлежат радикальному лечению. Гипердиагностика РПЖ низкой степени злокачественности обусловлена использованием для верифиации диагноза так называемых систематических методов биопсии предстательной железы, выполняемых под ультразвуковым (УЗ) контролем (стандартная трансректальная, сатурационная). В целях улучшения диагностики РПЖ Европейской ассоциацией урологов рекомендовано (2019) перед биопсией всем пациентам проводить мультипараметрическую магнитно-резонансную томографию, в случае обнаружения подозрительного очага выполнять магнитно-резонансную (МР) прицельную биопсию. Наибольшее распространение получила мультипараметрическая МР/УЗ (мпМР/УЗ) fusion-биопсия. Однако в ряде исследований представлены противоречивые результаты выявляемости РПЖ при сравнении систематических и МР-прицельных методов биопсии.Цель исследования – сравнение выявляемости клинически значимого РПЖ (ISUP ≥2) при проведении мпМР/УЗ fusion, стандартной и сатурационной биопсии.Материалы и методы. В исследование были включены 96 пациентов. Критерии включения: уровень простатического специфического антигена >2 нг/мл, и/или обнаружение подозрительного очага при проведении пальцевого ректального и/или трансректального ультразвукового исследования, и ≥3 баллов по критериям PI-RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) v.2.1. Первым этапом «расслепленный» уролог выполнял трансперинеальную мпМР/УЗ fusion и сатурационную биопсию, вторым этапом «ослепленный» уролог проводил стандартную трансректальную биопсию. Клинически значимый РПЖ определяли как ISUP ≥2.Результаты. Медиана возраста пациентов составила 63 года, объема предстательной железы – 47 см3, уровня простатического специфического антигена – 6,82 нг/мл. При сравнении результатов мпМР/УЗ fusion, стандартной и сатурационной биопсии не обнаружены статистически достоверные различия в отношении выявляемости клинически значимого (29, 24 и 28 % соответственно; p = 0,81) и клинически незначимого (25, 26 и 35 % соответственно; p = 0,43) рака. Общая выявляемость РПЖ также сопоставима – 54, 50 и 63 % соответственно (p = 0,59). Доля положительных биоптатов составила 33, 10 и 13 % соответственно (p <0,01). Максимальная длина биоптата, пораженного раком, при мпМР/УЗ fusion-биопсии – 6,4 мм, при стандартной – 6,35 мм, при сатурационной – 5,1 мм (p = 0,7).Заключение. Выявляемость клинически значимого, клинически незначимого и общая выявляемость РПЖ сопоставимы при проведении как систематических методов биопсии, так и мпМР/УЗ fusion-биопсии.ps
