Literature DB >> 12429310

Predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy in a racially diverse population: a prospective study.

Christopher R Porter1, Colin O'Donnell, E David Crawford, Eduard J Gamito, Bridgitta Sentizimary, Angelo De Rosalia, Ashutosh Tewari.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To develop a mathematical model to predict prostate biopsy outcome using readily available clinical variables.
METHODS: A total of 319 men (78% African American) undergoing transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy were prospectively studied. The parameters collected included age, race, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level, PSA density (PSAD), digital rectal examination findings, biopsy history, prostate volume (by transrectal ultrasound), and ultrasound findings. Models were constructed using multivariate logistic regression (LR) analysis and back-propagation artificial neural networks (ANNs). Patient data were randomly split into five cross-validation sets and used to develop and validate the LR and ANN models.
RESULTS: Of the 319 men, 39% had a positive biopsy. The mean patient age was 65.1 +/- 8.3 years, with a mean PSA level of 12.6 +/- 24.9 ng/mL and a mean PSAD of 0.31 +/- 0.66 ng/mL/cm(3). Univariate analysis indicated a significant difference in age, PSA level, PSAD, free PSA, digital rectal examination findings, TRUS lesion, and biopsy history between the positive and negative biopsy groups (P <0.01). The mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for the five LR models was 0.76 +/- 0.04 (range 0.71 to 0.81). The median LR AUROC was 0.76, with a corresponding specificity of 0.13 at a sensitivity of 0.95. The mean AUROC for the five ANN models was 0.76 +/- 0.04 (range 0.71 to 0.83). The median ANN AUROC was 0.76, with a corresponding specificity of 0.21 at a sensitivity of 0.95.
CONCLUSIONS: Two models (LR and ANN) that predict outcome with high efficiency (AUROC = 0.76) were constructed from a contemporary, prospective database. Such models may be useful to patients and physicians alike when assessing the diagnostic strategies available to detect prostate cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12429310     DOI: 10.1016/s0090-4295(02)01882-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  6 in total

1.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

Authors:  Shahrokh F Shariat; Claus G Roehrborn
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2008

2.  3.4 kb mitochondrial genome deletion serves as a surrogate predictive biomarker for prostate cancer in histopathologically benign biopsy cores.

Authors:  Brian Reguly; John P Jakupciak; Ryan L Parr
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 1.862

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.  Anatomic segmentation improves prostate cancer detection with artificial neural networks analysis of 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging.

Authors:  Lukasz Matulewicz; Jacobus F A Jansen; Louisa Bokacheva; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Oguz Akin; Samson W Fine; Amita Shukla-Dave; James A Eastham; Hedvig Hricak; Jason A Koutcher; Kristen L Zakian
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-11-15       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  Histopathology, pharmacotherapy, and predictors of prostatic malignancy in elderly male patients with raised prostate-specific antigen levels - A prospective study.

Authors:  Dhinesh Kumar Mathaiyan; Satya Prakash Tripathi; Jeffrey Pradeep Raj; Bodapati Sivaramakrishna
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2020-04-14

6.  Prediction models for prostate cancer to be used in the primary care setting: a systematic review.

Authors:  Mohammad Aladwani; Artitaya Lophatananon; William Ollier; Kenneth Muir
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-07-19       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.