Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleCommentary

Navigating the Future of Prostate Cancer Care: AI-Driven Imaging and Theranostics Through the Lens of RELAINCE

Aaron Jun Ning Wong, Hyun Soo Ko and Michael S. Hofman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine October 2024, 65 (10) 1503-1504; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.267924
Aaron Jun Ning Wong
Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hyun Soo Ko
Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael S. Hofman
Department of Cancer Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the recent second Prostate Cancer Theranostics and Imaging Centre of Excellence Preceptorship of 2024 held in Melbourne, Australia, a presentation on artificial intelligence (AI) in prostate cancer imaging was delivered in which the Recommendations for Evaluation of AI for Nuclear Medicine (RELAINCE) guidelines from the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging AI Task Force Evaluation team took center stage for the discussion (1).

The AI Task Force makes a point to provide a conceptual understanding for AI in the cancer imaging process. Categorization can be more fine-tuned than the specialist AI, professional facing, and clinical utility dichotomies discussed in the general population. The cancer imaging process can be further broken down to patient-to-image/image generation (acquiring, reconstructing, enhancing), image-to-patient (obtaining crucial image-derived information for patient care), clinical workflow (system throughput, triaging, reporting), and radiopharmaceutical therapies (drug discovery, dosimetry) (2).

Trial and study design must incorporate precise technical steps while focusing on the clinical task applied to the specific cancer patient journey (1). In prostate cancer management and theranostics, standard definitions of clinical tasks and subtasks can be categorized into the following: diagnosis (analyze intraprostatic lesions [vs. the PRIMARY score]); staging (detect disease, standardize conclusions, proofread reports); restaging (monitor metastases); theranostics (compare FDG and prostate-specific membrane antigen expression, streamline quantification [metabolic tumor volume, SUVmean], assist with patient selection; and dosimetry (measure uptake in normal organs and tumor, track disease uptake over treatments).

For AI tools to be successfully translated into practice, their clinical relevance and effectiveness needs to be clear. If aPROMISE (Pylarify AI) still reports 19.5 false-positive pelvic lesions per patient (3), then the tool is not yet practical. There is an opportunity to learn from the longer-existing computer-aided detection literature to conduct trials that combine AI tools with clinicians to affect clinical decision-making in nuclear medicine (4).

The RELAINCE framework helps categorize AI performance toward these clinical tasks according to tiered evidence, including proof of concept and technical, clinical, and postdeployment evaluation (1). Currently, most literature addresses the proof of concept and technical evaluation levels (5), including patient-level classification (accuracy), lesion-level detection (F1 score), lesion classification, and voxel-level segmentation (Dice coefficients).

The classification of clinical tasks and subtasks is part of the greater challenge of standardization and reproducibility. PET/CT is inherently a semiquantitative study type, and standardization of image generation is crucial to move to true quantification (6). ArtNET is the Australian network for standardization of PET acquisition parameters to make quantification more reproducible. Similarly, efforts to create regional standards are made by the Clinical Trials Network (Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging) and the European Association of Nuclear Medicine Research Ltd. However, maintaining each standard is costly, and regional differences may pose barriers to data comparability and medical image banking, which can only be overcome by international standardization.

There was also a discussion regarding reproducible methods that are applicable even if data harmonization is not fully achieved (7). Lymphoma research demonstrated that metabolic tumor volume segmentation using an absolute threshold of SUV 4 was resilient. In our institution, an absolute threshold of SUV 3 in prostate-specific membrane antigen PET/CT is applied on the basis of similar findings in prostate research. These insights must be considered when designing and evaluating imaging analysis pipelines for these to be reproducible (6).

Much like the promise of driverless cars, the technology is not quite there. However, the aim of an optimized system can be achieved through rapid and continuous learning. Getting the end-user clinician embedded within the research environment and fostering multidisciplinary learning will be decisive for future systems to be successful and sustainable. Postdeployment monitoring (e.g., ISO/IEC 42001:2023) and adjustments need to be factored into the research and development of today, which should also include the development of AI copilots (8). Nevertheless, the clinician–patient relationship will remain central. Developed AI systems should align with ideal values, but application of any AI tool might have inherent or unexpected flaws that must be rigorously tested and validated in a supervised environment. Who better to teach AI these values than clinician trainers?

The key to clinically relevant guidelines is to place the patient first, rather than the technology. Already, there is evidence of increasing technology accelerations including foundational models (9) and multimodality models, as well as further increasing performance, as seen in digital PET and whole-body imaging. In this context, streamlined data sharing will be important (10), and a multiparty ecosystem will ultimately be required for establishing trustworthy AI (2).

The promise of AI is that it will scale access to expertise and improve patient outcomes, while also reducing health-care costs. Current AI technology has not necessarily delivered on this promise, often shifting more work to the clinician with burdening amounts of false positives. We are grateful for the concerted effort of the research and clinical community pushing toward a better, more humane future and seek to be part of the interdisciplinary conversation for reproducible research in medical imaging.

DISCLOSURE

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Footnotes

  • Published online Aug. 29, 2024.

  • © 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Jha AK,
    2. Bradshaw TJ,
    3. Buvat I,
    4. et al
    . Nuclear medicine and artificial intelligence: best practices for evaluation (the RELAINCE guidelines). J Nucl Med. 2022;63:1288–1299.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Saboury B,
    2. Bradshaw T,
    3. Boellaard R,
    4. et al
    . Artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine: opportunities, challenges, and responsibilities toward a trustworthy ecosystem. J Nucl Med. 2023;64:188–196.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Johnsson K,
    2. Brynolfsson J,
    3. Sahlstedt H,
    4. et al
    . Analytical performance of aPROMISE: automated anatomic contextualization, detection, and quantification of [18F]DCFPyL (PSMA) imaging for standardized reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49:1041–1051.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Oakden-Rayner L
    . The rebirth of CAD: how is modern AI different from the CAD we know? Radiol Artif Intell. 2019;1:e180089.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lindgren Belal S,
    2. Frantz S,
    3. Minarik D,
    4. et al
    . Applications of artificial intelligence in PSMA PET/CT for prostate cancer imaging. Semin Nucl Med. 2024;54:141–149.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hatt M,
    2. Krizsan AK,
    3. Rahmim A,
    4. et al
    . Joint EANM/SNMMI guideline on radiomics in nuclear medicine: jointly supported by the EANM Physics Committee and the SNMMI Physics, Instrumentation and Data Sciences Council. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50:352–375.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bradshaw TJ,
    2. Boellaard R,
    3. Dutta J,
    4. et al
    . Nuclear medicine and artificial intelligence: best practices for algorithm development. J Nucl Med. 2022;63:500–510.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Brady AP,
    2. Allen B,
    3. Chong J,
    4. et al
    . Developing, purchasing, implementing and monitoring AI tools in radiology: practical considerations—a multi-society statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR and RSNA. Radiol Artif Intell. 2024;6:e230513.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Willemink MJ,
    2. Roth HR,
    3. Sandfort V
    . Toward foundational deep learning models for medical imaging in the new era of transformer networks. Radiol Artif Intell. 2022;4:e210284.
    OpenUrl
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bell LC,
    2. Shimron E
    . Sharing data is essential for the future of AI in medical imaging. Radiol Artif Intell. 2024;6:e230337.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 65 (10)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 65, Issue 10
October 1, 2024
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Navigating the Future of Prostate Cancer Care: AI-Driven Imaging and Theranostics Through the Lens of RELAINCE
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Navigating the Future of Prostate Cancer Care: AI-Driven Imaging and Theranostics Through the Lens of RELAINCE
Aaron Jun Ning Wong, Hyun Soo Ko, Michael S. Hofman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2024, 65 (10) 1503-1504; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.267924

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Navigating the Future of Prostate Cancer Care: AI-Driven Imaging and Theranostics Through the Lens of RELAINCE
Aaron Jun Ning Wong, Hyun Soo Ko, Michael S. Hofman
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Oct 2024, 65 (10) 1503-1504; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.267924
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A Letter from Ukraine
  • NRC Rejects Petitions to End Reliance on LNT Model
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire