Literature DB >> 14584066

A neurocomputational model for prostate carcinoma detection.

Pankaj Kalra1, Joanna Togami, Gaurav Bansal B S, Alan W Partin, Michael K Brawer, Richard J Babaian, Lawrence S Ross, Craig S Niederberger.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for prostate carcinoma screening rely primarily on the digital rectal examination (DRE) and prostate specific antigen (PSA). Well described patient risk factors for prostate carcinoma also include age, ethnicity, family history, and complexed PSA. However, due to the nonlinear relation of each of these variables with prostate carcinoma, it is difficult to predict reliably each patient's risk based on linear univariate analysis. The authors investigated a neural network to model the risk of prostate carcinoma by seven readily available clinical features.
METHODS: The database for the current study comprised 3268 men recently evaluated for the early detection of prostate carcinoma. The seven clinical features evaluated included age, race, family history, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), DRE, and total and complexed PSA. Three hundred forty-eight subjects in the dataset included men with determined prostate biopsy outcomes and for whom at least 6 of 7 features were available. The dataset was divided randomly into a training set (60%) and a test set (40%), with n1/n2 cross-validation used to evaluate model accuracy, and was modeled with linear and quadratic discriminant function analysis and a neural computational system. After a model with acceptable goodness of fit was achieved, reverse regression analysis using Wilks's generalized likelihood ratio test was performed to evaluate the statistical significance of each input variable.
RESULTS: The receiving operating characteristic (ROC) area for the neural computational system in the test set was 0.825, whereas total PSA and complexed PSA alone had ROC areas of 0.678 and 0.697, respectively. The ROC area of logistic regression in the test set was 0.510, linear discriminant function analysis was 0.674, and quadratic discriminant function analysis was 0.011. All were significantly less than the ROC area of the neural computational model (all Ps < 0.002). Reverse regression based on Wilks's generalized likelihood ratio test demonstrated each input feature to be highly significant to the model (all Ps << 0.000001).
CONCLUSIONS: The authors modeled a combination of well described patient risk factors for prostate carcinoma using a neural computational system with acceptable goodness of fit. They demonstrated that each of the seven variates on which the model was based was critically significant to model performance. The authors presented this model for clinical use and suggested that clinicians use it in deciding to perform prostate biopsy. Copyright 2003 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14584066     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11748

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  6 in total

1.  Using biopsy to detect prostate cancer.

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

2.  Nonlinear logistic regression model for outcomes after endourologic procedures: a novel predictor.

Authors:  Adam O Kadlec; Samuel Ohlander; James Hotaling; Jessica Hannick; Craig Niederberger; Thomas M Turk
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 3.  [Value of biomarkers in urology].

Authors:  P J Goebell; B Keck; S Wach; B Wullich
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 0.639

4.  Assay-specific artificial neural networks for five different PSA assays and populations with PSA 2-10 ng/ml in 4,480 men.

Authors:  Carsten Stephan; Chuanliang Xu; Henning Cammann; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese; Hartwig Huland; Axel Semjonow; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Mesut Remzi; Bob Djavan; Mark F Wildhagen; Bert G Blijenberg; Patrik Finne; Ulf-Hakan Stenman; Klaus Jung; Hellmuth-Alexander Meyer
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 5.  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

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.