Abstract
Objective
To review the components of past and present active surveillance (AS) protocols, provide an overview of the current studies employing artificial intelligence (AI) in AS of prostate cancer, discuss the current challenges of AI in AS, and offer recommendations for future research.
Methods
Research studies on the topic of MRI-based AI were reviewed to summarize current possibilities and diagnostic accuracies for AI methods in the context of AS. Established guidelines were used to identify possibilities for future refinement using AI.
Results
Preliminary results show the role of AI in a range of diagnostic tasks in AS populations, including the localization, follow-up, and prognostication of prostate cancer. Current evidence is insufficient to support a shift to AI-based AS, with studies being limited by small dataset sizes, heterogeneous inclusion and outcome definitions, or lacking appropriate benchmarks.
Conclusion
The AI-based integration of prostate MRI is a direction that promises substantial benefits for AS in the future, but evidence is currently insufficient to support implementation. Studies with standardized inclusion criteria and standardized progression definitions are needed to support this. The increasing inclusion of patients in AS protocols and the incorporation of MRI as a scheduled examination in AS protocols may help to alleviate these challenges in future studies.
Clinical relevance statement
This manuscript provides an overview of available evidence for the integration of prostate MRI and AI in active surveillance, addressing its potential for clinical optimizations in the context of established guidelines, while highlighting the main challenges for implementation.
Key Points
Active surveillance is currently based on diagnostic tests such as PSA, biopsy, and imaging.
Prostate MRI and AI demonstrate promising diagnostic accuracy across a variety of tasks, including the localization, follow-up and risk estimation in active surveillance cohorts.
A transition to AI-based active surveillance is not currently realistic; larger studies using standardized inclusion criteria and outcomes are necessary to improve and validate existing evidence.