Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Detection and Isolation of Cancer in Prostate Biopsies Using Stimulated Raman Histology and Artificial Intelligence
Published on: June 10, 2025
Does prostate HistoScanning™ play a role in detecting prostate cancer in routine clinical practice? Results from
Saqib Javed1, Eliot Chadwick, Albert A Edwards
1Department of Urology, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.
Objectives:
To evaluate the ability of prostate HistoScanning™ (PHS; Advanced Medical Diagnostics, Waterloo, Belgium) to detect, characterize and locally stage prostate cancer, by comparing it with transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, transperineal template prostate biopsies (TTBs) and whole-mount radical prostatectomy specimens.
Subjects And Methods:
Study 1. We recruited 24 patients awaiting standard 12-core TRUS-guided biopsies of the prostate to undergo PHS immediately beforehand. We compared PHS with the TRUS-guided biopsy results in terms of their ability to detect cancer within the whole prostate and to localize it to the correct side and to the correct region of the prostate. Lesions that were suspicious on PHS were biopsied separately. Study 2. We recruited 57 patients awaiting TTB to have PHS beforehand. We compared PHS with the TTB pathology results in terms of their ability to detect prostate cancer within the whole gland and to localize it to the correct side and to the correct sextant of the prostate. Study 3. We recruited 24 patients awaiting radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer to undergo preoperative PHS. We compared PHS with standardized pathological analysis of the whole-mount prostatectomy specimens in terms of their measurement of total tumour volume within the prostate, tumour volume within prostate sextants and volume of index lesions identified by PHS.
Results:
The PHS-targeted biopsies had an overall cancer detection rate of 38.1%, compared with 62.5% with standard TRUS-guided biopsies. The sensitivity and specificity of PHS for localizing tumour to the correct prostate sextant, compared with standard TRUS-guided biopsies, were 100 and 5.9%, respectively. The PHS-targeted biopsies had an overall cancer detection rate of 13.4% compared with 54.4% for standard TTB. PHS had a sensitivity and specificity for cancer detection in the posterior gland of 100 and 13%, respectively, and for the anterior gland, 6 and 82%, respectively. We found no correlation between total tumour volume estimates from PHS and radical prostatectomy pathology (Pearson correlation coefficient -0.096). Sensitivity and specificity of PHS for detecting tumour foci ≥0.2 mL in volume were 63 and 53%.
Conclusions:
These three independent studies in 105 patients suggest that PHS does not reliably identify and characterize prostate cancer in the routine clinical setting.
