Cargando…
Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer
BACKGROUND: Traditional methods for deciding whether to recommend a patient for a prostate biopsy are based on cut-off levels of stand-alone markers such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or any of its derivatives. However, in the last decade we have seen the increasing use of predictive models tha...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Libertas Academica
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780348 http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/CMO.S19739 |
_version_ | 1782359658032267264 |
---|---|
author | Bermejo, Pablo Vivo, Alicia Tárraga, Pedro J Rodríguez-Montes, JA |
author_facet | Bermejo, Pablo Vivo, Alicia Tárraga, Pedro J Rodríguez-Montes, JA |
author_sort | Bermejo, Pablo |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Traditional methods for deciding whether to recommend a patient for a prostate biopsy are based on cut-off levels of stand-alone markers such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or any of its derivatives. However, in the last decade we have seen the increasing use of predictive models that combine, in a non-linear manner, several predictives that are better able to predict prostate cancer (PC), but these fail to help the clinician to distinguish between PC and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients. We construct two new models that are capable of predicting both PC and BPH. METHODS: An observational study was performed on 150 patients with PSA ≥3 ng/mL and age >50 years. We built a decision tree and a logistic regression model, validated with the leave-one-out methodology, in order to predict PC or BPH, or reject both. RESULTS: Statistical dependence with PC and BPH was found for prostate volume (P-value < 0.001), PSA (P-value < 0.001), international prostate symptom score (IPSS; P-value < 0.001), digital rectal examination (DRE; P-value < 0.001), age (P-value < 0.002), antecedents (P-value < 0.006), and meat consumption (P-value < 0.08). The two predictive models that were constructed selected a subset of these, namely, volume, PSA, DRE, and IPSS, obtaining an area under the ROC curve (AUC) between 72% and 80% for both PC and BPH prediction. CONCLUSION: PSA and volume together help to build predictive models that accurately distinguish among PC, BPH, and patients without any of these pathologies. Our decision tree and logistic regression models outperform the AUC obtained in the compared studies. Using these models as decision support, the number of unnecessary biopsies might be significantly reduced. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4345941 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Libertas Academica |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-43459412015-03-16 Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer Bermejo, Pablo Vivo, Alicia Tárraga, Pedro J Rodríguez-Montes, JA Clin Med Insights Oncol Original Research BACKGROUND: Traditional methods for deciding whether to recommend a patient for a prostate biopsy are based on cut-off levels of stand-alone markers such as prostate-specific antigen (PSA) or any of its derivatives. However, in the last decade we have seen the increasing use of predictive models that combine, in a non-linear manner, several predictives that are better able to predict prostate cancer (PC), but these fail to help the clinician to distinguish between PC and benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) patients. We construct two new models that are capable of predicting both PC and BPH. METHODS: An observational study was performed on 150 patients with PSA ≥3 ng/mL and age >50 years. We built a decision tree and a logistic regression model, validated with the leave-one-out methodology, in order to predict PC or BPH, or reject both. RESULTS: Statistical dependence with PC and BPH was found for prostate volume (P-value < 0.001), PSA (P-value < 0.001), international prostate symptom score (IPSS; P-value < 0.001), digital rectal examination (DRE; P-value < 0.001), age (P-value < 0.002), antecedents (P-value < 0.006), and meat consumption (P-value < 0.08). The two predictive models that were constructed selected a subset of these, namely, volume, PSA, DRE, and IPSS, obtaining an area under the ROC curve (AUC) between 72% and 80% for both PC and BPH prediction. CONCLUSION: PSA and volume together help to build predictive models that accurately distinguish among PC, BPH, and patients without any of these pathologies. Our decision tree and logistic regression models outperform the AUC obtained in the compared studies. Using these models as decision support, the number of unnecessary biopsies might be significantly reduced. Libertas Academica 2015-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC4345941/ /pubmed/25780348 http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/CMO.S19739 Text en © 2015 the author(s), publisher and licensee Libertas Academica Ltd. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC 3.0 License. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Bermejo, Pablo Vivo, Alicia Tárraga, Pedro J Rodríguez-Montes, JA Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer |
title | Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer |
title_full | Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer |
title_fullStr | Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer |
title_full_unstemmed | Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer |
title_short | Development of Interpretable Predictive Models for BPH and Prostate Cancer |
title_sort | development of interpretable predictive models for bph and prostate cancer |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345941/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25780348 http://dx.doi.org/10.4137/CMO.S19739 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bermejopablo developmentofinterpretablepredictivemodelsforbphandprostatecancer AT vivoalicia developmentofinterpretablepredictivemodelsforbphandprostatecancer AT tarragapedroj developmentofinterpretablepredictivemodelsforbphandprostatecancer AT rodriguezmontesja developmentofinterpretablepredictivemodelsforbphandprostatecancer |