Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42360093

Artificial intelligence in genitourinary oncology: publication trends and systematic review.

Alee Kim·Nicole A Moore·Tammy Dong·Kelsy Fu·Katie Keyser·Shari Clifton·Adanma Ayanambakkam·Ryan Nipp
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an analysis of publication trends and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to characterize the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) use in genitourinary (GU) oncology, as AI has emerged as a transformative tool in healthcare with potential applications in diagnostics, treatment planning, and prognostication. METHODS: We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE; Ovid), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Ultimate for studies related to AI and GU oncology, excluding non-English papers, non-human studies, review articles, and articles using AI solely for manuscript writing. Publication trends were analysed from 2013 to 2023 and categorized by study design and cancer type. RCTs were evaluated through systematic review using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies, with risk of bias (RoB) evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. RESULTS: Of 2409 articles identified, 1220 met inclusion criteria. These included 962 retrospective articles, 175 prospective studies, 79 studies with combined retrospective/prospective methods, and four RCTs. Studies most commonly addressed prostate (n = 923), renal (n = 274), and urothelial (n = 194) cancers. Publications grew from 14 in 2013 to 362 in 2023, with substantial acceleration in 2019. Four RCTs were identified - one in urothelial cancer and three in prostate cancer. Two RCTs evaluated AI-based diagnostics, demonstrating improved performance over conventional methods; the remaining two RCTs evaluated AI in prognostication and treatment planning, showing improved gains in imaging interpretation and operational efficiency. RoB varied across studies, primarily related to randomisation and deviations from intended interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence research in GU oncology has grown, although high-level evidence from RCTs remains limited. Existing trials underscore AI's promise in diagnostics, prognostication, and treatment planning, and the rapidly evolving nature of this field warrants continued prospective investigation.

Explore related subjects

HumansArtificial IntelligenceUrogenital NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMaleMedical Oncologyartificial intelligencegenitourinary oncologyprostate cancerpublication trendssystematic reviewJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Alee Kim, Nicole A Moore, Tammy Dong, Kelsy Fu, Katie Keyser, Shari Clifton, Adanma Ayanambakkam, Ryan Nipp. 2026-06-26. Artificial intelligence in genitourinary oncology: publication trends and systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70361

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Artificial Intelligence subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectJournal Article; Systematic Review; Review resourceMale subjectSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Efficacy of current approaches to non-invasive diagnosis of skin cancer and the potential impact of artificial intelligence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is one of the most prevalent malignancies worldwide, particularly within Caucasian populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantitatively review the current literature on non-invasive diagnosis of skin cancer and evaluate the current evidence to support the use of tools in addition to, or in replacement of clinician face-to-face assessment. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for publications in PubMed, Medline and Embase databases. Articles describing accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and outcomes of their mode of assessment were included. A total of 208 articles met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that the diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in the interpretation of dermatoscopic images was high for melanoma diagnosis, basal cell carcinoma or malignancy, in comparison to dermatoscopic assessment alone by clinicians and experts. Although AI interpretation of images demonstrated higher sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis in comparison to clinical assessment combined with dermatoscopic assessment, it is unclear if this is also the case for basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma diagnosis. Reflectance confocal microscopy, a non-invasive high resolution imaging technique, is known to have a high sensitivity for diagnosing cutaneous malignancy, and this may have applications within secondary care. Therefore, AI could help reduce resource burden and aid in clinical assessment, particularly within primary care settings.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Beyond predictive performance: A systematic review and critical methodological appraisal of AI/ML and conventional modelling strategies in breast, colorectal, and pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Predictive modelling for cancer risk, treatment-related complications, and survival is central to precision oncology. Conventional logistic regression (LR) and Cox proportional hazards (CoxPH) regression remain widely used but are limited when modelling nonlinear interactions, high-dimensional imaging features, and multimodal clinical-metabolic predictors. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods offer expanded capability through automated feature extraction, ensemble learning, and flexible survival modelling, but the evidence on when AI/ML adds value over conventional models across cancer sites and predictive tasks remains fragmented. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the methodological performance, validation strategies, and translational limitations of AI/ML models compared with conventional statistical models in published predictive-modelling studies for breast, colorectal, or pancreatic cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2019 and March 2025. Two reviewers independently conducted title-and-abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and PROBAST risk-of-bias assessment. Sixty-five studies (n = 907,567 participants) were narratively synthesised by cancer site, predictive task, model family, comparator, validation strategy, predictor modality, and calibration or explainability reporting. RESULTS: The 65 studies comprised breast cancer (n = 35), colorectal cancer (n = 21), and pancreatic cancer (n = 9). AI/ML superiority over LR and CoxPH was task- and data-dependent. CNN- and U-Net-based models predominated in imaging and body-composition tasks, tree-based ensembles consistently outperformed LR for tabular perioperative complication prediction, and CoxPH remained competitive, and in the largest pancreatic risk study, superior to XGBoost (C-index 0.802 vs 0.723) in well-structured datasets. PROBAST analysis-domain risk was moderate in 54 of 65 studies (83%), driven by limited external validation, sparse calibration reporting (11/65), and few decision-curve analyses (7/65). CONCLUSION: AI/ML adds the most methodological value in imaging-derived feature extraction and nonlinear perioperative prediction, while conventional regression remains preferable in large, structured datasets with linear predictors. Clinical translation requires standardised body-composition definitions, external validation, calibration assessment, decision-curve analysis, and explainability, in line with TRIPOD+AI and CLAIM standards.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-supported double reading in European population breast cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective programs.

BACKGROUND: Most European population mammography screening programs rely on double reading with arbitration, a model that delivers mortality benefit but is increasingly challenged by radiologist workload, variable specificity, and interval cancers. Artificial intelligence (AI) is being evaluated to support or optimize these established European screening pathways. PURPOSE: To synthesize prospective or program-embedded evaluations of AI conducted within European-style population screening programs and to estimate exploratory program-level absolute risk differences (RDs) per 1000 examinations for cancer detection rate (CDR) and recall. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prespecified, focused evidence synthesis of three large studies embedded within routine population screening programs operating under European-relevant workflows: MASAI (randomized AI-supported risk triage within a national program), ScreenTrustCAD (prospective paired-reader evaluation with AI as an independent reader in a double-reading framework), and PRAIM (nationwide decision-referral implementation). Outcomes were harmonized as AI-control RDs per 1000 examinations. Random-effects pooling used Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman models. For the paired-reader design, sensitivity analyses applied a Kish effective sample-size approach across plausible within-examination correlations (ρ = 0.3-0.8). Positive predictive value (PPV) and workflow/time outcomes were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Across 597,419 examinations, the pooled CDR RD was +0.9 per 1000 (95% CI -0.0 to +1.8; I2 ≈ 12%), consistent with a modest directional increase with borderline statistical uncertainty. The pooled recall RD was -0.6 per 1000 (95% CI -3.1 to +2.1; I2 ≈ 41-43%), indicating no consistent recall increase across screening programs. Where reported, PPV was higher with AI-supported screening. Efficiency signals included 44.3% fewer total readings in MASAI and shorter reading times for AI-normal examinations in PRAIM; in PRAIM, a program-level safety-net mechanism recovered 204 cancers that would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSION: In European population screening programs characterized by double reading and arbitration, prospective program-embedded evidence suggests that AI integration may yield a small absolute increase in cancer detection (≈1/1000) without a consistent increase in recall, alongside improved PPV and efficiency signals. These findings suggestAI primarily as a complementary reader within European screening workflows, with implementation requiring explicit quality assurance and monitoring of interval cancers and stage distribution.

Humans↗