Cited by 175AI in cancer detectionArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationProstate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment

Independent real‐world application of a clinical‐grade automated prostate cancer detection system

Open access
da Silva, Leonard M, Pereira, Emilio M, Salles, Paulo GO, Godrich, Ran, Ceballos, Rodrigo, Kunz, Jeremy D, Casson, Adam, Viret, Julian +13 more·2021·The Journal of Pathology

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI)‐based systems applied to histopathology whole‐slide images have the potential to improve patient care through mitigation of challenges posed by diagnostic variability, histopathology caseload, and shortage of pathologists. We sought to define the performance of an AI‐based automated prostate cancer detection system, Paige Prostate, when applied to independent real‐world data. The algorithm was employed to classify slides into two categories: benign (no further review needed) or suspicious (additional histologic and/or immunohistochemical analysis required). We assessed the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs) of a local pathologist, two central pathologists, and Paige Prostate in the diagnosis of 600 transrectal ultrasound‐guided prostate needle core biopsy regions (‘part‐specimens’) from 100 consecutive patients, and to ascertain the impact of Paige Prostate on diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Paige Prostate displayed high sensitivity (0.99; CI 0.96–1.0), NPV (1.0; CI 0.98–1.0), and specificity (0.93; CI 0.90–0.96) at the part‐specimen level. At the patient level, Paige Prostate displayed optimal sensitivity (1.0; CI 0.93–1.0) and NPV (1.0; CI 0.91–1.0) at a specificity of 0.78 (CI 0.64–0.89). The 27 part‐specimens considered by Paige Prostate as suspicious, whose final diagnosis was benign, were found to comprise atrophy (n = 14), atrophy and apical prostate tissue (n = 1), apical/benign prostate tissue (n = 9), adenosis (n = 2), and post‐atrophic hyperplasia (n = 1). Paige Prostate resulted in the identification of four additional patients whose diagnoses were upgraded from benign/suspicious to malignant. Additionally, this AI‐based test provided an estimated 65.5% reduction of the diagnostic time for the material analyzed. Given its optimal sensitivity and NPV, Paige Prostate has the potential to be employed for the automated identification of patients whose histologic slides could forgo full histopathologic review. In addition to providing incremental improvements in diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, this AI‐based system identified patients whose prostate cancers were not initially diagnosed by three experienced histopathologists. © 2021 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/path.5662

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
da Silva, L. M., Pereira, E. M., Salles, P. G., Godrich, R., Ceballos, R., Kunz, J. D., Casson, A., Viret, J., Chandarlapaty, S., Ferreira, C. G., Ferrari, B., Rothrock, B., Raciti, P., Reuter, V., Dogdas, B., DeMuth, G., Sue, J., Kanan, C., Grady, L., Fuchs, T. J., & Reis‐Filho, J. S.
Affiliations
  • Grupo Oncoclinicas Sao Paulo Brazil
  • Instituto Mario Penna Belo Horizonte Brazil
  • Paige New York NY USA
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Stat One Wilmington NC USA
  • Department of Pathology Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center New York NY USA
Corresponding author
Fuchs, Thomas J
Venue
The Journal of Pathology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-27
Volume
254
Issue
2
Pages
147-158
ISSN
  • 0022-3417 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9896
OpenAlex
W3157209223
Cited by
175
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 5
FWCI
8.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Pathology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Breast Cancer Research Foundation
  • National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748, K12CA184746)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
prostate cancer detection, automated histopathology, whole slide images, artificial intelligence, diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic efficiency, prostate atrophy, adenosis, diagnostic variability, pathologist shortage, central pathology review, real-world validation
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Pathologists, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Artificial Intelligence, Biopsy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prostate, Prostatic Neoplasms, Biopsy, Large-Core Needle

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review