Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Multimodal MRI-Ultrasound AI for Prostate Cancer Detection Outperforms Radiologist MRI Interpretation: A Multi-Center Study

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A multimodal AI that combines MRI and transrectal ultrasound detects and localizes clinically significant prostate cancer better than either modality alone and better than radiologists reading MRI.

desk verdict Large, well-assembled clinical evaluation of an MRI+TRUS 3D U-Net for prostate cancer detection, but the headline gain over unimodal MRI is confounded by a training/evaluation space mismatch that the paper never isolates. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00146 v1 pith:YIZXEJKL submitted 2025-01-31 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Hassan Jahanandish , Shengtian Sang , Cynthia Xinran Li , Sulaiman Vesal , Indrani Bhattacharya , Jeong Hoon Lee , Richard Fan , Geoffrey A. Sonna
show 1 more author
Mirabela Rusu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords prostatecancermultimodalAIMRItransrectalultrasoundclinicallysignificant3DU-Netlesionsegmentationbiopsytargeting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish that feeding a 3D U-Net both pre-biopsy MRI sequences and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) volumes lets it find clinically significant prostate cancer better than using either modality alone. Across 1,700 test patients from two institutions, the multimodal model reports 80% sensitivity and 42% lesion Dice versus 73% and 30% for MRI-only and 49% and 27% for TRUS-only models. In a 110-patient prostatectomy cohort, it matches radiologist sensitivity at 79% while reaching 88% specificity versus the radiologists' 78%. If this holds, it means an automated pipeline can localize significant cancer directly in the ultrasound space where biopsy needles are guided, reducing the reliance on radiologist outlines and MRI-to-ultrasound registration.

What carries the argument

The central object is a 3D U-Net that takes the three MRI sequences (T2-weighted, ADC, DWI) and the TRUS volume as separate input channels, concatenates them into voxel patches, and processes them through a shared encoder-decoder with skip connections. It is trained to segment three labels at once: the prostate gland, any cancer, and clinically significant prostate cancer. A learned 3D affine registration step maps the MRI volumes into TRUS space before input, so every prediction is made in the same space where the biopsy happens. This combination of multi-channel fusion and ultrasound-space prediction is what carries the argument: the model can compare MRI's soft-tissue contrast with TRUS's spatial information at the exact location a needle would be placed.

What would settle it

Compare the multimodal model's predictions against whole-mount pathology in a cohort where every patient has whole-gland pathology, not only prostatectomy candidates, and check whether the model finds cancers that the fusion-projected radiologist labels missed. If the sensitivity and Dice gains over the MRI-only model disappear when ground truth comes from pathology-registered TRUS contours instead of projected MR outlines, the complementary-information claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that MR and TRUS image sequences carry complementary information that a single unified model can exploit. The multimodal model achieves 80% sensitivity and 42% lesion Dice versus 73% and 30% for the MRI-only model and 49% and 27% for the TRUS-only model, averaged across all test cohorts. Against radiologists reading MRI in routine care, the model achieves the same 79% sensitivity but higher specificity (88% versus 78%) and higher lesion Dice (38% versus 33%). The model outputs its predictions natively in TRUS space, which is the coordinate system used at biopsy, so it bypasses the common failure mode in which MRI-identified lesions must be projected onto ultrasound with imperfect registration.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the ground-truth labels for the 1,590 biopsy test patients, radiologist-drawn MRI outlines projected onto ultrasound by the fusion system, faithfully mark the true cancer locations; if those projections are wrong or incomplete, the reported performance partly measures agreement with the label-generation process rather than real cancer detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fusion-biopsy systems could use the multimodal model's predictions as the targeting map instead of radiologist-drawn outlines, since the model already outputs lesions in TRUS space.
  • The 97% negative predictive value reported for the multimodal model suggests it could act as a screening gate to avoid unnecessary biopsies, if that value persists in prospective use.
  • Because the sensitivity gain over the MRI-only model was largest in the external test cohort, adding TRUS input appears to improve generalization across institutions and scanners.
  • A single model that segments the prostate, indolent cancer, and clinically significant cancer simultaneously supplies the complete spatial information a biopsy plan needs.
  • The failure analysis shows missed lesions are concentrated in small, low-grade tumors, meaning the model is most reliable for the aggressive lesions that drive clinical decisions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not test real-time deployment, but I infer the largest practical payoff would be turning a standard ultrasound machine into a cancer-targeting device in settings where pre-biopsy MRI is unavailable or slow.
  • A lesion Dice of 42% is still far from perfect boundary agreement, so I interpret the clinically useful claim as reliable detection and coarse targeting rather than exact tumor boundary delineation for treatment planning.
  • A natural next test, which the paper only partially covers with its 110-patient pathology cohort, is whether the multimodal gains persist when ground truth is generated independently of the fusion system's projected radiologist labels.
  • The anecdotal case where TRUS detected a lesion missed by both MRI and radiologists suggests ultrasound may carry independent signal for MRI-invisible cancers, but the paper does not quantify how often this happens.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 3D U-Net that jointly uses multiparametric MRI (T2w, ADC, DWI) and TRUS image sequences to segment the prostate, any cancer, and clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) directly in TRUS space. The model is trained on 1410 Stanford fusion-biopsy cases and tested on 1700 cases from three cohorts: a Stanford biopsy cohort (345 withheld cases), an external UCLA biopsy cohort (1245 cases), and a Stanford radical prostatectomy cohort (110 cases). The main claims are that the multimodal model outperforms unimodal MRI and TRUS models across all test cohorts (e.g., 80% vs 73% sensitivity and 0.42 vs 0.30 Lesion Dice versus unimodal MRI), and that it outperforms radiologist readings on the 110-patient radical prostatectomy cohort (e.g., 88% vs 78% specificity and 0.38 vs 0.33 Lesion Dice with equal sensitivity). The authors attribute this to complementary information in MRI and TRUS and position the model as a potential tool for biopsy targeting and treatment planning.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work is clinically significant: it would be the first large-scale demonstration that a single model can localize CsPCa directly in TRUS space, potentially reducing the need for MRI-TRUS fusion registration and expert radiologist interpretation. The study uses a large multi-institution dataset, includes an external cohort, and validates against whole-mount pathology in a separate cohort, which are notable strengths. The paper is also transparent about its limitations, including registration error in the projected labels and the retrospective design. However, the strength of the evidence is currently undercut by a training/evaluation space confound in the unimodal MRI baseline, the absence of confidence intervals or significance tests for the main comparisons, and the dominance of the biopsy cohorts whose ground truth is the same label type used for training. These issues must be addressed before the claims of superiority are fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.3, Table 1] The unimodal MRI baseline is trained in MR image space and its prediction probabilities are projected to TRUS space, whereas the multimodal model is trained directly in TRUS space on TRUS-projected ground-truth labels. This is a confound: the reported improvements in sensitivity (0.80 vs 0.73) and Lesion Dice (0.42 vs 0.30) could arise from the multimodal model being trained and evaluated in the same label/output space, rather than from complementary TRUS information. The text states that MR-space training 'empirically yielded the best performance' but does not report a TRUS-space MRI-only baseline or an MRI model trained on the same projected labels. Please provide this control, or otherwise restrict the claim to be about the integrated system rather than about the contribution of the TRUS channel.
  2. [Table 1 and Discussion] The Results and Discussion describe the multimodal model's sensitivity and Dice gains over the unimodal MRI model as 'significantly higher' and 'statistically and clinically significant,' yet no confidence intervals, p-values, or significance tests are reported for the metrics in Tables 1 and 2. For a study of 1700 test cases, this is a load-bearing omission: without uncertainty quantification, the reader cannot assess whether the 0.07 sensitivity and 0.12 Lesion Dice differences are stable across cohorts. Please add per-cohort CIs (e.g., bootstrap) and appropriate tests, and adjust the language in the Discussion accordingly.
  3. [Table 2, §4.4] The radiologist comparison in Table 2 reports ROC and PR areas for radiologist readings, but radiologist outlines are binary segmentations. The manuscript does not explain how ROC and PR curves were constructed for a binary predictor; if a threshold or scoring mechanism was used, it should be described. This is necessary to interpret the reported advantages of 0.11 in ROC and 0.07 in PR over radiologists.
  4. [§4.1, Ground Truth; §3, Limitations] For the two biopsy cohorts that constitute 1555 of the 1700 test cases, the ground truth is radiologist-outlined MRI lesions projected to TRUS via the fusion biopsy system. The model is trained on the same type of projected labels, so performance on these cohorts partly measures agreement with the label-generation procedure rather than truth. The paper acknowledges this as a limitation and points to the 110-patient radical prostatectomy cohort as an independent check, but the central claim of superiority is dominated by the biopsy cohorts. The multimodal-vs-MRI differences are smaller in the RP cohort (e.g., sensitivity 0.79 vs 0.72, Lesion Dice 0.38 vs 0.30), which tempers the conclusion. Please report the biopsy-cohort results with the circularity caveat, and consider emphasizing the RP cohort as the primary evidence for the detection claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and §4.1] The abstract states 3100 patients while §4.1 states 3110 studies; please reconcile the total.
  2. [Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion] The phrase 'complimentary information' appears several times and should be 'complementary information.'
  3. [Figure 2] The Dice values below each image are not labeled with the corresponding model or radiologist panel; the order of the four panels (TRUS AI, MRI AI, Multimodal AI, Radiologist) is ambiguous. Please label each subpanel explicitly.
  4. [§4.4] The definition of Lesion Dice as 'the overall dice for patients with correctly predicted cancers' is ambiguous; please state whether it is averaged per lesion or per patient and how 'correctly predicted' is defined.
  5. [§2, Failure Analysis] The reported 'median volume 90% CI: 254 mm3' for missed lesions is unclear; a confidence interval for a median should be described (e.g., bootstrap) or replaced with an interquartile range.
  6. [§2] The text contains a spacing typo: 'two-way ANOV A test' should be 'two-way ANOVA test.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the whole-mount pathology benchmark provides an external check that breaks the label loop.

full rationale

This is an empirical evaluation study rather than a derivation chain, and no reported result is obtained by definition, by fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or by a load-bearing self-citation. The biopsy-cohort ground truth is "pathology-confirmed radiologist outlines" projected to TRUS (Section 4.1), and the models are trained on the same projected label representation; the paper itself acknowledges that "these labels may bring registration errors and miss the lesions that radiologists may have missed or have been MRI invisible." That is a label-quality and validity limitation, not circularity, because the pathology confirmation and, more importantly, the independent radical-prostatectomy cohort with pixel-level whole-mount pathology ground truth (Section 4.3) provide external criteria that do not reduce to the training labels. The central radiologist comparison is evaluated against whole-mount pathology, so the claimed superiority over radiologists is not forced by construction. The comparison against the unimodal MRI model is confounded by a training/evaluation space asymmetry: the unimodal MRI model is trained in MR space "which empirically yielded the best performance" and its probabilities are then projected to TRUS, whereas the multimodal model trains directly in TRUS space on TRUS-space labels. This is an experimental-design fairness concern, not a circular step, because the multimodal result is not equal to an input by construction and the unimodal baseline could in principle be trained in TRUS space. Self-citations (references 27, 28, 32, 36, 40) are methodological and are not used to import an unverified uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative explanations. No circular step meeting the quoted-evidence standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about label fidelity and image registration that are inherited from the clinical workflow and not independently verified in this paper. The two ad hoc design choices, joint label training and MRI-space training for the unimodal baseline, were made based on empirical performance and are not derived from first principles. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • BCE and Dice loss weighting = not reported
    Section 4.2 combines binary cross entropy and dice loss but does not state the relative weight. This hand-chosen hyperparameter affects training and the resulting model performance.
  • nnU-Net training hyperparameters = not reported
    Patch size, batch size, learning rate, and number of epochs are not reported. These choices affect the trained model and therefore the central comparison.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Radiologist outlines projected to TRUS via the fusion system are valid cancer ground truth for biopsy cohorts.
    Section 4.1 Ground Truth: labels are pathology-confirmed targeted lesions outlined by radiologists on MRI and projected to TRUS; used for training and for 1,555 of 1,700 test cases.
  • domain assumption Whole-mount pathology registration to TRUS by the expert scientist is accurate.
    Section 4.1: an expert manually outlined cancer on TRUS using whole-mount pathology slides; no validation of this registration is provided.
  • domain assumption The affine registration model from ref 36 accurately aligns MRI to TRUS for all cases.
    Section 4.1 Data Preprocessing: used to bring MRI sequences into TRUS space and to project radiologist outlines and MRI model predictions.
  • domain assumption Lesion-level evaluation with sextant-level negatives is clinically meaningful.
    Section 4.4 Performance Evaluation: sensitivity and Dice are lesion-level; specificity is sextant-level. The equivalence of these metrics to biopsy outcomes is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Training the model to segment prostate, any cancer, and CsPCa simultaneously improves CsPCa performance.
    Section 4.2: 'We empirically found that enabling the model to learn all the above labels was helpful.' This is a hand-chosen design decision, not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper Training the unimodal MRI model in MR space yields the best performance.
    Section 4.3: 'training of the unimodal MRI model was done in the MR image space which empirically yielded the best performance.' This choice affects the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multimodal MRI-Ultrasound AI for Prostate Cancer Detection Outperforms Radiologist MRI Interpretation: A Multi-Center Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YIZXEJKL

@misc{pith2026250200146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multimodal MRI-Ultrasound AI for Prostate Cancer Detection Outperforms Radiologist MRI Interpretation: A Multi-Center Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YIZXEJKL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00146}
}
read the original abstract

Pre-biopsy magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used to target suspicious prostate lesions. This has led to artificial intelligence (AI) applications improving MRI-based detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa). However, MRI-detected lesions must still be mapped to transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images during biopsy, which results in missing CsPCa. This study systematically evaluates a multimodal AI framework integrating MRI and TRUS image sequences to enhance CsPCa identification. The study included 3110 patients from three cohorts across two institutions who underwent prostate biopsy. The proposed framework, based on the 3D UNet architecture, was evaluated on 1700 test cases, comparing performance to unimodal AI models that use either MRI or TRUS alone. Additionally, the proposed model was compared to radiologists in a cohort of 110 patients. The multimodal AI approach achieved superior sensitivity (80%) and Lesion Dice (42%) compared to unimodal MRI (73%, 30%) and TRUS models (49%, 27%). Compared to radiologists, the multimodal model showed higher specificity (88% vs. 78%) and Lesion Dice (38% vs. 33%), with equivalent sensitivity (79%). Our findings demonstrate the potential of multimodal AI to improve CsPCa lesion targeting during biopsy and treatment planning, surpassing current unimodal models and radiologists; ultimately improving outcomes for prostate cancer patients.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (A) Overview of the internal patient cohort used for model development and the three independent internal and external cohorts used for model performance evaluation. The Stanford Radical Prostatectomy test cohort was additionally used to compare AI cancer detection performance with radiologists. (B) illustrates the architecture of our multimodal deep learning AI model. The model uses all image sequences as input and… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative performance of the Multimodal and MRI AI models shown in 3D against CsPCa ground truths (shown in yellow outlines) in two representative cases from the external test cohort 𝑪𝐵𝑋 𝑈𝐶𝐿𝐴. Various TRUS image slides have been shown across the sagittal plane through the prostate gland to highlight the AI model predictions across the entire extent of the lesions. Cancer MRI AI Prediction Multimodal AI Prediction … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Prostate cancer is the second-most prevalent cancer in men worldwide1 and remains the cancer with second-highest mortality among American men2. The 5-year survival rate of prostate cancer patients has been reported to increase to 99% if the cancer is diagnosed in the early stages and treated while still localized or regional, in contrast with...

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    The model was evaluated using three independent test cohorts including two biopsy cohorts (𝑪𝐵𝑋 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑑and 𝑪𝐵𝑋 𝑈𝐶𝐿𝐴) and one radical prostatectomy cohort (𝑪𝑅𝑃 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑑)

    Results Our multimodal AI model is based on a 3D UNet backbone and integrates MRI (T2w, ADC, and DWI sequences) and TRUS image sequences as inputs to simultaneously segment the prostate gland, indolent cancer lesions, and CsPCa lesions. The model was evaluated using three independent test cohorts including two biopsy cohorts (𝑪𝐵𝑋 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑑and 𝑪𝐵𝑋 𝑈𝐶𝐿𝐴) and...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Discussion In the present study, we demonstrated the feasibility of developing a large-scale multimodal AI model that utilizes both MR and TRUS image sequences as input modalities to identify and localize CsPCa directly on TRUS images for the first time. We further confirmed the hypothesis that MR and TRUS image sequences contain complimentary information...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Materials and Methods 4.1. Description of the Data and Cohorts: Cohorts: The present study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Stanford University and included retrospective data from three patient cohorts consisting of a total of 3110 studies where each study represents a unique patient. The three patient cohorts were from two institu...

    work page

  5. [5]

    However, the multimodal model better captured the extent of the lesion, enhancing the chance of a successful targeted biopsy based on its localization compared to the MRI model

    Both models showed over-localization and under-localization with respect to parts of the larger lesion present in Case 4. However, the multimodal model better captured the extent of the lesion, enhancing the chance of a successful targeted biopsy based on its localization compared to the MRI model. Failure Analysis: The test cohorts included a total of 66...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bray, F. et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 74, 229–263 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    L., Miller, K

    Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., Fuchs, H. E. & Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 72, 7–33 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Ahmed, H. U. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. The Lancet 389, 815–822 (2017)

    2017

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Soerensen, S. J. C. et al. Trends in pre-biopsy MRI usage for prostate cancer detection, 2007–

    2007

  2. [10]

    & Huisman, H

    Litjens, G., Debats, O., Barentsz, J., Karssemeijer, N. & Huisman, H. Computer-aided detection of prostate cancer in MRI. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 33, 1083–1092 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    P., Sanda, M

    Quinn, T. P., Sanda, M. G., Howard, D. H., Patil, D. & Filson, C. P. Disparities in Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Traditionally Underserved Prostate Cancer Patients. Cancer 127, 2974–2979 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Sonn, G. A. et al. Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging Interpretation Varies Substantially Across Radiologists. Eur. Urol. Focus 5, 592–599 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    T, J. M. C., Arif, M., Niessen, W. J., Schoots, I. G. & Veenland, J. F. Automated Classification of Significant Prostate Cancer on MRI: A Systematic Review on the Performance of Machine Learning Applications. Cancers 12, 1606 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    & Haider, M

    Turkbey, B. & Haider, M. A. Artificial Intelligence for Automated Cancer Detection on Prostate MRI: Opportunities and Ongoing Challenges, From the AJR Special Series on AI Applications. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 219, 188–194 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Bhattacharya, I. et al. A review of artificial intelligence in prostate cancer detection on imaging. Ther. Adv. Urol. 14, 17562872221128792 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bosma, J. S. et al. Semisupervised Learning with Report-guided Pseudo Labels for Deep Learning-based Prostate Cancer Detection Using Biparametric MRI. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 5, e230031 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Viswanath, S. E. et al. Comparing radiomic classifiers and classifier ensembles for detection of peripheral zone prostate tumors on T2-weighted MRI: a multi-site study. BMC Med. Imaging 19, 22 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    & Rubin, D

    Sanyal, J., Banerjee, I., Hahn, L. & Rubin, D. An Automated Two-step Pipeline for Aggressive Prostate Lesion Detection from Multi-parametric MR Sequence. AMIA Summits Transl. Sci. Proc. 2020, 552–560 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Seetharaman, A. et al. Automated detection of aggressive and indolent prostate cancer on magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Phys. 48, 2960–2972 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    & Huisman, H

    Saha, A., Hosseinzadeh, M. & Huisman, H. End-to-end prostate cancer detection in bpMRI via 3D CNNs: Effects of attention mechanisms, clinical priori and decoupled false positive reduction. Med. Image Anal. 73, 102155 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    Li, S.-T. et al. Prostate cancer of magnetic resonance imaging automatic segmentation and detection of based on 3D-Mask RCNN. J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 16, 100636 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Andras, I. et al. MRI-TRUS fusion guided prostate biopsy – initial experience and assessment of the role of contralateral lobe systematic biopsy. Med. Ultrason. 21, 37 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Li, C. X. et al. ProstAtlasDiff: Prostate Cancer Detection on MRI using Diffusion Probabilistic Models guided by Population Spatial Cancer Atlases. Med. Image Anal. (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Saha, A. et al. Artificial intelligence and radiologists in prostate cancer detection on MRI (PI- CAI): an international, paired, non-inferiority, confirmatory study. Lancet Oncol. (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    & Moore, C

    Giganti, F. & Moore, C. M. A critical comparison of techniques for MRI-targeted biopsy of the prostate. Transl. Androl. Urol. 6, 43243–43443 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    & Choyke, P

    Turkbey, B. & Choyke, P. L. Future Perspectives and Challenges of Prostate MRI. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 56, 327–337 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Falagario, U. G. et al. Prostate cancer detection and complications of MRI-targeted prostate biopsy using cognitive registration, software-assisted image fusion or in-bore guidance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1–...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Bhattacharya, I. et al. MIC-CUSP: Multimodal Image Correlations for Ultrasound-Based Prostate Cancer Detection. in International Workshop on Advances in Simplifying Medical Ultrasound (eds. Kainz, B. et al.) vol. 14337 121–131 (Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Cata, E. et al. Systematic sampling during MRI-US fusion prostate biopsy can overcome errors of targeting—prospective single center experience after 300 cases in first biopsy setting. Transl. Androl. Urol. 9, 2510518–2512518 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Cool, D. W. et al. Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 204, 83–91 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    & Feleppa, E

    Rohrbach, D., Wodlinger, B., Wen, J., Mamou, J. & Feleppa, E. High-frequency quantitative ultrasound for imaging prostate cancer using a novel micro-ultrasound scanner. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 44, 1341–1354 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    B., O’Brien, C., Correas, J.-M

    Dias, A. B., O’Brien, C., Correas, J.-M. & Ghai, S. Multiparametric ultrasound and micro- ultrasound in prostate cancer: a comprehensive review. Br. J. Radiol. 95, 20210633 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Vesal, S. et al. ProsDectNet: Bridging the Gap in Prostate Cancer Detection via Transrectal B-mode Ultrasound Imaging. in (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Turkbey, B. et al. Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2.1: 2019 Update of Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System Version 2. Eur. Urol. 76, 340–351 (2019)

    2019

  27. [35]

    Jahanandish, H. et al. A deep learning framework to assess the feasibility of localizing prostate cancer on b-mode transrectal ultrasound images. in Medical Imaging 2024: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography vol. 12932 168–173 (SPIE, 2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Javadi, G. et al. Training deep networks for prostate cancer diagnosis using coarse histopathological labels. in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention– MICCAI 2021: 24th International Conference, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceeding...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Akatsuka, J. et al. A data-driven ultrasound approach discriminates pathological high grade prostate cancer. Sci. Rep. 12, 860 (2022)

    2022

  30. [38]

    & Sonn, G

    Rusu, M., Jahanandish, H., Sulaiman, V . & Sonn, G. A. ProCUSNet: Prostate Cancer Detection On B-mode Transrectal Ultrasound Using Artificial Intelligence For Targeting During Prostate Biopsies. Eur. Urol. Oncol. (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    Hassan, Md. R. et al. Prostate cancer classification from ultrasound and MRI images using deep learning based Explainable Artificial Intelligence. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 127, 462–472 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bhattacharya, I. et al. Selective identification and localization of indolent and aggressive prostate cancers via CorrSigNIA: an MRI-pathology correlation and deep learning framework. Med. Image Anal. 75, 102288 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    van Leenders, G. J. L. H. et al. The 2019 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 44, e87–e99 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Sang, S. et al. Swin Transformer-based affine registration of MRI and ultrasound images of the prostate. in Medical Imaging 2024: Ultrasonic Imaging and Tomography vol. 12932 39– 44 (SPIE, 2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    F., Kohl, S

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P. F., Kohl, S. A. A., Petersen, J. & Maier-Hein, K. H. nnU-Net: a self- configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nat. Methods 18, 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    & Brox, T

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P. & Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1505.04597 (2015)

    2015 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

    S., Brox, T

    Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S. S., Brox, T. & Ronneberger, O. 3D U-Net: Learning Dense V olumetric Segmentation from Sparse Annotation. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.06650 (2016)

    2016 doi arXiv

  38. [2022]

    1–4 (2024) doi:10.1038/s41391-024-00896-y

    Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 1–4 (2024) doi:10.1038/s41391-024-00896-y

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.