A multitude of studies have explored the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in providing diagnostic support to radiologists, pathologists, and urologists in prostate cancer detection, risk-stratification, and management. This review provides a comprehensive overview of relevant literature regarding the use of AI models in (1) detecting prostate cancer on radiology images (magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging), (2) detecting prostate cancer on histopathology images of prostate biopsy tissue, and (3) assisting in supporting tasks for prostate cancer detection (prostate gland segmentation, MRI-histopathology registration, MRI-ultrasound registration). We discuss both the potential of these AI models to assist in the clinical workflow of prostate cancer diagnosis, as well as the current limitations including variability in training data sets, algorithms, and evaluation criteria. We also discuss ongoing challenges and what is needed to bridge the gap between academic research on AI for prostate cancer and commercial solutions that improve routine clinical care.

Automated methods for detecting prostate cancer and distinguishing indolent from aggressive disease on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) could assist in early diagnosis and treatment planning. Existing automated methods of prostate cancer detection mostly rely on ground truth labels with limited accuracy, ignore disease pathology characteristics observed on resected tissue, and cannot selectively identify aggressive (Gleason Pattern≥4) and indolent (Gleason Pattern=3) cancers when they co-exist in mixed lesions. In this paper, we present a radiology-pathology fusion approach, CorrSigNIA, for the selective identification and localization of indolent and aggressive prostate cancer on MRI. CorrSigNIA uses registered MRI and whole-mount histopathology images from radical prostatectomy patients to derive accurate ground truth labels and learn correlated features between radiology and pathology images. These correlated features are then used in a convolutional neural network architecture to detect and localize normal tissue, indolent cancer, and aggressive cancer on prostate MRI. CorrSigNIA was trained and validated on a dataset of 98 men, including 74 men that underwent radical prostatectomy and 24 men with normal prostate MRI. CorrSigNIA was tested on three independent test sets including 55 men that underwent radical prostatectomy, 275 men that underwent targeted biopsies, and 15 men with normal prostate MRI. CorrSigNIA achieved an accuracy of 80% in distinguishing between men with and without cancer, a lesion-level ROC-AUC of 0.81±0.31 in detecting cancers in both radical prostatectomy and biopsy cohort patients, and lesion-levels ROC-AUCs of 0.82±0.31 and 0.86±0.26 in detecting clinically significant cancers in radical prostatectomy and biopsy cohort patients respectively. CorrSigNIA consistently outperformed other methods across different evaluation metrics and cohorts. In clinical settings, CorrSigNIA may be used in prostate cancer detection as well as in selective identification of indolent and aggressive components of prostate cancer, thereby improving prostate cancer care by helping guide targeted biopsies, reducing unnecessary biopsies, and selecting and planning treatment.

Purpose:Targeted biopsy improves prostate cancer diagnosis. Accurate prostate segmentation on MRI is critical for accurate biopsy. Manual gland segmentation is tedious and time-consuming. We sought...

The localization of extraprostatic extension (EPE), i.e., local spread of prostate cancer beyond the prostate capsular boundary, is important for risk stratification and surgical planning. However, the sensitivity of EPE detection by radiologists on MRI is low (57% on average). In this paper, we propose a method for computational detection of EPE on multiparametric MRI using deep learning. Ground truth labels of cancers and EPE were obtained in 123 patients (38 with EPE) by registering pre-surgical MRI with whole-mount digital histopathology images from radical prostatectomy. Our approach has two stages. First, we trained deep learning models using the MRI as input to generate cancer probability maps both inside and outside the prostate. Second, we built an image post-processing pipeline that generates predictions for EPE location based on the cancer probability maps and clinical knowledge. We used five-fold cross-validation to train our approach using data from 74 patients and tested it using data from an independent set of 49 patients. We compared two deep learning models for cancer detection: (i) UNet and (ii) the Correlated Signature Network for Indolent and Aggressive prostate cancer detection (CorrSigNIA). The best end-to-end model for EPE detection, which we call EPENet, was based on the CorrSigNIA cancer detection model. EPENet was successful at detecting cancers with extraprostatic extension, achieving a mean area under the receiver operator characteristic curve of $0.72$ at the patient-level. On the test set, EPENet had 80.0% sensitivity and 28.2% specificity at the patient-level compared to 50.0% sensitivity and 76.9% specificity for the radiologists. To account for spatial location of predictions during evaluation, we also computed results at the sextant-level, where the prostate was divided into sextants according to standard systematic 12-core biopsy procedure. At the sextant-level, EPENet achieved mean sensitivity 61.1% and mean specificity 58.3%. Our approach has the potential to provide the location of extraprostatic extension using MRI alone, thus serving as an independent diagnostic aid to radiologists and facilitating treatment planning.

Background: Prostate cancer remains the second deadliest cancer for American men despite clinical advancements. Currently, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered the most sensitive non‐invasive imaging modality that enables visualization, detection, and localization of prostate cancer, and is increasingly used to guide targeted biopsies for prostate cancer diagnosis. However, its utility remains limited due to high rates of false positives and false negatives as well as low inter‐reader agreements.Purpose: Machine learning methods to detect and localize cancer on prostate MRI can help standardize radiologist interpretations. However, existing machine learning methods vary not only in model architecture, but also in the ground truth labeling strategies used for model training. We compare different labeling strategies and the effects they have on the performance of different machine learning models for prostate cancer detection on MRI.Methods: Four different deep learning models (SPCNet, U‐Net, branched U‐Net, and DeepLabv3+) were trained to detect prostate cancer on MRI using 75 patients with radical prostatectomy, and evaluated using 40 patients with radical prostatectomy and 275 patients with targeted biopsy. Each deep learning model was trained with four different label types: pathology‐confirmed radiologist labels, pathologist labels on whole‐mount histopathology images, and lesion‐level and pixel‐level digital pathologist labels (previously validated deep learning algorithm on histopathology images to predict pixel‐level Gleason patterns) on whole‐mount histopathology images. The pathologist and digital pathologist labels (collectively referred to as pathology labels) were mapped onto pre‐operative MRI using an automated MRI‐histopathology registration platform.Results: Radiologist labels missed cancers (ROC‐AUC: 0.75‐0.84), had lower lesion volumes (~68% of pathology lesions), and lower Dice overlaps (0.24‐0.28) when compared with pathology labels. Consequently, machine learning models trained with radiologist labels also showed inferior performance compared to models trained with pathology labels. Digital pathologist labels showed high concordance with pathologist labels of cancer (lesion ROC‐AUC: 0.97‐1, lesion Dice: 0.75‐0.93). Machine learning models trained with digital pathologist labels had the highest lesion detection rates in the radical prostatectomy cohort (aggressive lesion ROC‐AUC: 0.91‐0.94), and had generalizable and comparable performance to pathologist label‐trained‐models in the targeted biopsy cohort (aggressive lesion ROC‐AUC: 0.87‐0.88), irrespective of the deep learning architecture. Moreover, machine learning models trained with pixel‐level digital pathologist labels were able to selectively identify aggressive and indolent cancer components in mixed lesions on MRI, which is not possible with any human‐annotated label type.Conclusions: Machine learning models for prostate MRI interpretation that are trained with digital pathologist labels showed higher or comparable performance with pathologist label‐trained models in both radical prostatectomy and targeted biopsy cohort. Digital pathologist labels can reduce challenges associated with human annotations, including labor, time, inter‐ and intra‐reader variability, and can help bridge the gap between prostate radiology and pathology by enabling the training of reliable machine learning models to detect and localize prostate cancer on MRI.