Literature DB >> 11790278

Genetic adaptive neural network to predict biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy: a multi-institutional study.

A Tewari1, M Issa, R El-Galley, H Stricker, J Peabody, J Pow-Sang, A Shukla, Z Wajsman, M Rubin, J Wei, J Montie, R Demers, C C Johnson, L Lamerato, G W Divine, E D Crawford, E J Gamito, R Farah, P Narayan, G Carlson, M Menon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Despite many new procedures, radical prostatectomy remains one of the commonest methods of treating clinically localized prostate cancer. Both from the physician's and the patient's point of view, it is important to have objective estimation of the likelihood of recurrence, which forms the foundation for treatment selection for an individual patient. Currently, it is difficult to predict the probability of biochemical recurrence (rising serum prostate specific antigen [PSA] concentration) in an individual patient, and approximately 30% of the patients do experience recurrence. Tools predicting the recurrence will be of immense practical utility in the treatment selection and planning follow up. We have utilized preoperative parameters through a computer based genetic adaptive neural network model to predict recurrence in such patients, which can help primary care physicians and urologists in making management recommendations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fourteen hundred patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at participating institutions form the subjects of this study. Demographic data such as age, race, preoperative PSA, systemic biopsy based staging and Gleason scores were used to construct a neural network model. This model simulated the functioning of a trained human mind and learned from the database. Once trained, it was used to predict the outcomes in new patients.
RESULTS: The patients in this comprehensive database were representative of the average prostate cancer patients as seen in USA. Their mean age was 68.4 years, the mean PSA concentration before surgery was 11.6 ng/mL, and 67% patients had a Gleason sum of 5 to 7. The mean length of follow-up was 41.5 months. Eighty percent of the cancers were clinical stage T2 and 5% T3. In our series, 64% of patients had pathologically organ-confined cancer, 33% positive margins, and 14% had seminal vesicle invasion. Lymph node positive patients were not included in this series. Progression as judged by serum PSA was noted in 30.6%. With entry of a few routinely used parameters, the model could correctly predict recurrence in 76% of the patients in the validation set. The area under the curve was 0.831. The sensitivity was 85%, the specificity 74%, the positive predictive value 77%, and the negative predictive value of 83%.
CONCLUSION: It was possible to predict PSA recurrence with a high accuracy (76%). Physicians desiring objective treatment counseling can use this model, and significant cost savings are anticipated because of appropriate treatment selection and patient-specific follow-up protocols. This technology can be extended to other treatments such as watchful waiting, external-beam radiation, and brachytherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11790278     DOI: 10.1089/10915360152745849

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Urol        ISSN: 1091-5362


  8 in total

Review 1.  Artificial neural networks for predictive modeling in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Eduard J Gamito; E David Crawford
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.075

Review 2.  Artificial neural networks and prostate cancer--tools for diagnosis and management.

Authors:  Xinhai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Kurt Miller; Klaus Jung; Carsten Stephan
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 3.  Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Michael W Kattan; Andrew J Vickers; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Future Oncol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 3.404

4.  Intraoperative finding of gross lymph node metastasis during robot-assisted prostatectomy.

Authors:  Wooju Jeong; Shyam Sukumar; Firas Petros; Mani Menon; James O Peabody; Craig G Rogers
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2011-09-27

5.  Early prediction of response to radiotherapy and androgen-deprivation therapy in prostate cancer by repeated functional MRI: a preclinical study.

Authors:  Kathrine Røe; Manish Kakar; Therese Seierstad; Anne H Ree; Dag R Olsen
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2011-06-08       Impact factor: 3.481

6.  Risk prediction models for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy using prostate-specific antigen and Gleason score.

Authors:  Xin-Hai Hu; Henning Cammann; Hellmuth-A Meyer; Klaus Jung; Hong-Biao Lu; Natalia Leva; Ahmed Magheli; Carsten Stephan; Jonas Busch
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2014 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.285

7.  Applications of machine learning in cancer prediction and prognosis.

Authors:  Joseph A Cruz; David S Wishart
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2007-02-11

8.  A systematic review of the applications of Expert Systems (ES) and machine learning (ML) in clinical urology.

Authors:  Hesham Salem; Daniele Soria; Jonathan N Lund; Amir Awwad
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2021-07-22       Impact factor: 2.796

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.