Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review evaluates AI's effectiveness in predicting prostate cancer outcomes and tumor characterization, suggesting promising integration into clinical practice.
Background/Objectives: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most commonly diagnosed cancer in men globally. Radiation oncologists often find PCa tumor characterization and outcome prediction challenging. Therefore, the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) implementation in radiation oncology has increased in recent years. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of AI algorithms in characterizing PCa tumors and predicting post-therapy outcomes. Methods: A total of 2055 studies were identified through a comprehensive search across PubMed and Scopus, then exported to Covidence. Inclusion criteria focused on prospective and retrospective cohort studies as well as randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and 2024 that explored the implementation of AI in tumor characterization and outcome prediction of PCa. Two independent reviewers evaluated each paper, and evaluation metrics such as specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) were analyzed. The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions, Version 2 (ROBINS-I V2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias (ROB). Results: Across the 19 studies analyzed, there was no significant difference in model performance between machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) models. AI models using multi-input strategies (e.g., radiomics with clinical markers) generally performed better than single-input models. Of the imaging modalities used for radiomic feature extraction, multiparametric MRI (mpMRI)-trained AI models consistently achieved the highest performance. Conclusions: AI displays considerable potential for integration into clinical workflows for PCa management. However, further studies utilizing larger datasets and external cohorts independent of the sample population are needed to validate clinical utility and improve model transparency for reliable implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aljoudi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: