Cargando…

Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy

BACKGROUND: Machine learning has many attractive theoretic properties, specifically, the ability to handle non predefined relations. Additionally, studies have validated the clinical utility of mpMRI for the detection and localization of CSPCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). In this study, we sought to dev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yu, Shuanbao, Tao, Jin, Dong, Biao, Fan, Yafeng, Du, Haopeng, Deng, Haotian, Cui, Jinshan, Hong, Guodong, Zhang, Xuepei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33993876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00849-w
_version_ 1783693936172204032
author Yu, Shuanbao
Tao, Jin
Dong, Biao
Fan, Yafeng
Du, Haopeng
Deng, Haotian
Cui, Jinshan
Hong, Guodong
Zhang, Xuepei
author_facet Yu, Shuanbao
Tao, Jin
Dong, Biao
Fan, Yafeng
Du, Haopeng
Deng, Haotian
Cui, Jinshan
Hong, Guodong
Zhang, Xuepei
author_sort Yu, Shuanbao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Machine learning has many attractive theoretic properties, specifically, the ability to handle non predefined relations. Additionally, studies have validated the clinical utility of mpMRI for the detection and localization of CSPCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). In this study, we sought to develop and compare machine-learning models incorporating mpMRI parameters with traditional logistic regression analysis for prediction of PCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 3) and CSPCa on initial biopsy. METHODS: A total of 688 patients with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis and tPSA ≤ 50 ng/ml, who underwent mpMRI and prostate biopsy were included between 2016 and 2020. We used four supervised machine-learning algorithms in a hypothesis-free manner to build models to predict PCa and CSPCa. The machine-learning models were compared to the logistic regression analysis using AUC, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: The artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) yielded similar diagnostic accuracy with logistic regression, while classification and regression tree (CART, AUC = 0.834 and 0.867) had significantly lower diagnostic accuracy than logistic regression (AUC = 0.894 and 0.917) in prediction of PCa and CSPCa (all P < 0.05). However, the CART illustrated best calibration for PCa (SSR = 0.027) and CSPCa (SSR = 0.033). The ANN, SVM, RF, and LR for PCa had higher net benefit than CART across the threshold probabilities above 5%, and the five models for CSPCa displayed similar net benefit across the threshold probabilities below 40%. The RF (53% and 57%, respectively) and SVM (52% and 55%, respectively) for PCa and CSPCa spared more unnecessary biopsies than logistic regression (35% and 47%, respectively) at 95% sensitivity for detection of CSPCa. CONCLUSION: Machine-learning models (SVM and RF) yielded similar diagnostic accuracy and net benefit, while spared more biopsies at 95% sensitivity for detection of CSPCa, compared with logistic regression. However, no method achieved desired performance. All methods should continue to be explored and used in complementary ways.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8127331
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81273312021-05-18 Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy Yu, Shuanbao Tao, Jin Dong, Biao Fan, Yafeng Du, Haopeng Deng, Haotian Cui, Jinshan Hong, Guodong Zhang, Xuepei BMC Urol Research BACKGROUND: Machine learning has many attractive theoretic properties, specifically, the ability to handle non predefined relations. Additionally, studies have validated the clinical utility of mpMRI for the detection and localization of CSPCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 4). In this study, we sought to develop and compare machine-learning models incorporating mpMRI parameters with traditional logistic regression analysis for prediction of PCa (Gleason score ≥ 3 + 3) and CSPCa on initial biopsy. METHODS: A total of 688 patients with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis and tPSA ≤ 50 ng/ml, who underwent mpMRI and prostate biopsy were included between 2016 and 2020. We used four supervised machine-learning algorithms in a hypothesis-free manner to build models to predict PCa and CSPCa. The machine-learning models were compared to the logistic regression analysis using AUC, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis. RESULTS: The artificial neural network (ANN), support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF) yielded similar diagnostic accuracy with logistic regression, while classification and regression tree (CART, AUC = 0.834 and 0.867) had significantly lower diagnostic accuracy than logistic regression (AUC = 0.894 and 0.917) in prediction of PCa and CSPCa (all P < 0.05). However, the CART illustrated best calibration for PCa (SSR = 0.027) and CSPCa (SSR = 0.033). The ANN, SVM, RF, and LR for PCa had higher net benefit than CART across the threshold probabilities above 5%, and the five models for CSPCa displayed similar net benefit across the threshold probabilities below 40%. The RF (53% and 57%, respectively) and SVM (52% and 55%, respectively) for PCa and CSPCa spared more unnecessary biopsies than logistic regression (35% and 47%, respectively) at 95% sensitivity for detection of CSPCa. CONCLUSION: Machine-learning models (SVM and RF) yielded similar diagnostic accuracy and net benefit, while spared more biopsies at 95% sensitivity for detection of CSPCa, compared with logistic regression. However, no method achieved desired performance. All methods should continue to be explored and used in complementary ways. BioMed Central 2021-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8127331/ /pubmed/33993876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00849-w Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Yu, Shuanbao
Tao, Jin
Dong, Biao
Fan, Yafeng
Du, Haopeng
Deng, Haotian
Cui, Jinshan
Hong, Guodong
Zhang, Xuepei
Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
title Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
title_full Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
title_fullStr Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
title_full_unstemmed Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
title_short Development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
title_sort development and head-to-head comparison of machine-learning models to identify patients requiring prostate biopsy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127331/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33993876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00849-w
work_keys_str_mv AT yushuanbao developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT taojin developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT dongbiao developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT fanyafeng developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT duhaopeng developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT denghaotian developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT cuijinshan developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT hongguodong developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy
AT zhangxuepei developmentandheadtoheadcomparisonofmachinelearningmodelstoidentifypatientsrequiringprostatebiopsy