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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |