In this modern era of digital pathology, artificial intelligence (AI)-based diagnostics for prostate cancer has become a hot topic. Multiple retrospective studies have demonstrated the benefits of AI-based diagnostic solutions for prostate cancer that includes improved prostate cancer detection, quantification, grading, interobserver concordance, cost and time savings, and a potential to reduce pathologists’ workload and enhance pathology laboratory workflow. One of the major milestones is the Food and Drug Administration approval of Paige prostate AI for a second review of prostate cancer diagnosed using core needle biopsies. However, implementation of these AI tools for routine prostate cancer diagnostics is still lacking. Some of the limiting factors include costly digital pathology workflow, lack of regulatory guidelines for deployment of AI, and lack of prospective studies demonstrating the actual benefits of AI algorithms. Apart from diagnosis, AI algorithms have the potential to uncover novel insights into understanding the biology of prostate cancer and enable better risk stratification, and prognostication. This article includes an in-depth review of the current state of AI for prostate cancer diagnosis and highlights the future prospects of AI in prostate pathology for improved patient care.

Digital workflow transformation continues to sweep throughout a diversity of pathology departments spanning the globe following catalyzation of whole slide imaging (WSI) adoption by the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic. The utility of WSI for a litany of use cases including primary diagnosis has been emphasized during this period, with WSI scanning devices gaining the approval of healthcare regulatory bodies and practitioners alike for clinical applications following extensive validatory efforts. As successful validation for WSI is predicated upon pathologist diagnostic interpretability of digital images with high glass slide concordance, departmental adoption of WSI is tantamount to the reliability of such images often predicated upon quality assessment notwithstanding image interpretability but extending to quality of practice following WSI adoption. Metrics of importance within this context include failure rates inclusive of different scanning errors that result in poor image quality and the potential such errors may incur upon departmental turnaround time (TAT). We sought to evaluate the impact of WSI implementation through retrospective evaluation of scan failure frequency in archival versus newly prepared slides, types of scanning error, and impact upon TAT following commencement of live WSI operation in May 2017 until the present period within a fully digitized high-volume academic institution. A 1.19% scan failure incidence rate was recorded during this period, with re-scanning requested and successfully executed for 1.19% of cases during the reported period of January 2019 until present. No significant impact upon TAT was deduced, suggesting an outcome which may be encouraging for departments considering digital workflow adoption.