On-demand — Precision dosing for urology teams

About this Webinar

From a workflow perspective, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, although confirmatory data are still limited. Across multiple cohorts, variability between operators remains a key limitation, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Across multiple cohorts, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Across multiple cohorts, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, which has direct implications for daily practice. Recent studies suggest that digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

Emerging evidence indicates that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, a finding echoed by several independent groups. In routine practice, integrating quantitative measures reduces subjective bias, particularly in resource-constrained settings. From a workflow perspective, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, which has direct implications for daily practice. According to consensus recommendations, threshold harmonization is still an open question, a finding echoed by several independent groups.