Objectives: This study investigated patients’ acceptance of artificial intelligence (AI) for diagnosing prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI scans and the factors influencing their trust in AI diagnoses. Materials and methods: A prospective, multicenter study was conducted between January and November 2023. Patients undergoing prostate MRI were surveyed about their opinions on hypothetical AI assessment of their MRI scans. The questionnaire included nine items: four on hypothetical scenarios of combinations between AI and the radiologist, two on trust in the diagnosis, and three on accountability for misdiagnosis. Relationships between the items and independent variables were assessed using multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 212 PCa suspicious patients undergoing prostate MRI were included. The majority preferred AI involvement in their PCa diagnosis alongside a radiologist, with 91% agreeing with AI as the primary reader and 79% as the secondary reader. If AI has a high certainty diagnosis, 15% of the respondents would accept it as the sole decision-maker. Autonomous AI outperforming radiologists would be accepted by 52%. Higher educated persons tended to accept AI when it would outperform radiologists (p < 0.05). The respondents indicated that the hospital (76%), radiologist (70%), and program developer (55%) should be held accountable for misdiagnosis. Conclusions: Patients favor AI involvement alongside radiologists in PCa diagnosis. Trust in AI diagnosis depends on the patient’s education level and the AI performance, with autonomous AI acceptance by a small majority on the condition that AI outperforms a radiologist. Respondents held the hospital, radiologist, and program developers accountable for misdiagnosis in descending order of accountability. Clinical relevance statement: Patients show a high level of acceptance for AI-assisted prostate cancer diagnosis on MRI, either alongside radiologists or fully autonomous, particularly if it demonstrates superior performance to radiologists alone. Key Points: Prostate cancer suspicious patients may accept autonomous AI based on performance. Patients prefer AI involvement alongside a radiologist in diagnosing prostate cancer. Patients indicate accountability for AI should be shared among multiple stakeholders.

Background: Deep learning (DL)-based models have demonstrated an ability to automatically diagnose clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI scans and are regularly reported to approach expert performance. The aim of this work was to systematically review the literature comparing deep learning (DL) systems to radiologists in order to evaluate the comparative performance of current state-of-the-art deep learning models and radiologists. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Studies investigating DL models for diagnosing clinically significant (cs) PCa on MRI were included. The quality and risk of bias of each study were assessed using the checklist for AI in medical imaging (CLAIM) and QUADAS-2, respectively. Patient level and lesion-based diagnostic performance were separately evaluated by comparing the sensitivity achieved by DL and radiologists at an identical specificity and the false positives per patient, respectively. Results: The final selection consisted of eight studies with a combined 7337 patients. The median study quality with CLAIM was 74.1% (IQR: 70.6–77.6). DL achieved an identical patient-level performance to the radiologists for PI-RADS ≥ 3 (both 97.7%, SD = 2.1%). DL had a lower sensitivity for PI-RADS ≥ 4 (84.2% vs. 88.8%, p = 0.43). The sensitivity of DL for lesion localization was also between 2% and 12.5% lower than that of the radiologists. Conclusions: DL models for the diagnosis of csPCa on MRI appear to approach the performance of experts but currently have a lower sensitivity compared to experienced radiologists. There is a need for studies with larger datasets and for validation on external data.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) offers strong soft tissue contrast but suffers from long acquisition times and requires tedious annotation from radiologists. Traditionally, these challenges have been addressed separately with reconstruction and image analysis algorithms. To see if performance could be improved by treating both as end-to-end, we hosted the K2S challenge, in which challenge participants segmented knee bones and cartilage from 8× undersampled k-space. We curated the 300-patient K2S dataset of multicoil raw k-space and radiologist quality-checked segmentations. 87 teams registered for the challenge and there were 12 submissions, varying in methodologies from serial reconstruction and segmentation to end-to-end networks to another that eschewed a reconstruction algorithm altogether. Four teams produced strong submissions, with the winner having a weighted Dice Similarity Coefficient of 0.910 ± 0.021 across knee bones and cartilage. Interestingly, there was no correlation between reconstruction and segmentation metrics. Further analysis showed the top four submissions were suitable for downstream biomarker analysis, largely preserving cartilage thicknesses and key bone shape features with respect to ground truth. K2S thus showed the value in considering reconstruction and image analysis as end-to-end tasks, as this leaves room for optimization while more realistically reflecting the long-term use case of tools being developed by the MR community.

Objectives: This study explores the methods employed by commercially available AI products to accelerate MRI protocols and investigates the strength of their diagnostic image quality assessment. Materials and methods: All commercial AI products for MRI acceleration were identified from the exhibitors presented at the RSNA 2023 and ECR 2024 annual meetings. Peer-reviewed scientific articles describing validation of clinical performance were searched for each product. Information was extracted regarding the MRI acceleration technique, achieved acceleration, diagnostic performance metrics, test cohort, and hallucinatory artifacts. The strength of the diagnostic image quality was assessed using scientific evidence levels ranging from “product’s technical feasibility for clinical purposes” to “product’s economic impact on society”. Results: Out of 1046 companies, 14 products of 14 companies were included. No scientific articles were found for four products (29%). For the remaining ten products (71%), 21 articles were retrieved. Four acceleration methods were identified: noise reduction, raw data reconstruction, personalized scanning protocols, and synthetic image generation. Only a limited number of articles prospectively demonstrated impact on patient outcomes (n = 4, 19%), and no articles discussed an evaluation in a prospective cohort of > 100 patients or performed an economic analysis. None of the articles performed an analysis of hallucinatory artifacts. Conclusion: Currently, commercially available AI products for MRI acceleration can be categorized into four main methods. The acceleration methods lack prospective scientific evidence on clinical performance in large cohorts and economic analysis, which would help to get a better insight into their diagnostic performance and enable safe and effective clinical implementation. Key Points: Question There is a growing interest in AI products that reduce MRI scan time, but an overview of these methods and their scientific evidence is missing. Findings Only a limited number of articles (n = 4, 19%) prospectively demonstrated the impact of the software for accelerating MRI on diagnostic performance metrics. Clinical relevance Although various commercially available products shorten MRI acquisition time, more studies in large cohorts are needed to get a better insight into the diagnostic performance of AI-constructed MRI.

The increasing incidence of prostate cancer cases worldwide has led to a tremendous demand for multiparametric MRI (mpMRI). In order to relieve the pressure on healthcare, reducing mpMRI scan time is necessary. This review focuses on recent techniques proposed for faster mpMRI acquisition, specifically shortening T2W and DWI sequences while adhering to the PI‐RADS (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System) guidelines. Speeding up techniques in the reviewed studies rely on more efficient sampling of data, ranging from the acquisition of fewer averages or b‐values to adjustment of the pulse sequence. Novel acquisition methods based on undersampling techniques are often followed by suitable reconstruction methods typically incorporating synthetic priori information. These reconstruction methods often use artificial intelligence for various tasks such as denoising, artifact correction, improvement of image quality, and in the case of DWI, for the generation of synthetic high b‐value images or apparent diffusion coefficient maps. Reduction of mpMRI scan time is possible, but it is crucial to maintain diagnostic quality, confirmed through radiological evaluation, to integrate the proposed methods into the standard mpMRI protocol. Additionally, before clinical integration, prospective studies are recommended to validate undersampling techniques to avoid potentially inaccurate results demonstrated by retrospective analysis. This review provides an overview of recently proposed techniques, discussing their implementation, advantages, disadvantages, and diagnostic performance according to PI‐RADS guidelines compared to conventional methods.Level of Evidence: 3Technical Efficacy: Stage 3

The proposed deep learning model based on MRI and clinical characteristics showed good performance in predicting progression from low-risk prostate cancer to clinically significant prostate cancer.