OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to develop support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural network (ANN) models for the pre-operative prediction of advanced prostate cancer by using the parameters acquired from transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, and to compare the accuracies between the two models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent prostate biopsies and prostatectomies for prostate cancer were divided into the training and test groups (n = 300 versus n = 232). From the data in the training group, two clinical decision support systems (CDSSs-[SVM and ANN]) were constructed with input (age, prostate specific antigen level, digital rectal examination, and five biopsy parameters) and output data (the probability for advanced prostate cancer [> pT3a]). From the data of the test group, the accuracy of output data was evaluated. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were calculated to summarize the overall performances, and a comparison of the ROC curves was performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The AUC of SVM and ANN is 0.805 and 0.719, respectively (p = 0.020), in the pre-operative prediction of advanced prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The performance of SVM is superior to ANN in the pre-operative prediction of advanced prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to develop support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural network (ANN) models for the pre-operative prediction of advanced prostate cancer by using the parameters acquired from transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsies, and to compare the accuracies between the two models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred thirty-two consecutive patients who underwent prostate biopsies and prostatectomies for prostate cancer were divided into the training and test groups (n = 300 versus n = 232). From the data in the training group, two clinical decision support systems (CDSSs-[SVM and ANN]) were constructed with input (age, prostate specific antigen level, digital rectal examination, and five biopsy parameters) and output data (the probability for advanced prostate cancer [> pT3a]). From the data of the test group, the accuracy of output data was evaluated. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) were calculated to summarize the overall performances, and a comparison of the ROC curves was performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The AUC of SVM and ANN is 0.805 and 0.719, respectively (p = 0.020), in the pre-operative prediction of advanced prostate cancer. CONCLUSION: The performance of SVM is superior to ANN in the pre-operative prediction of advanced prostate cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision support systems, clinical; Medical order entry systems; Needle biopsy; Prostatic neoplasms; Staging
Authors: Felix K-H Chun; Alberto Briganti; Markus Graefen; Francesco Montorsi; Christopher Porter; Vincenzo Scattoni; Andrea Gallina; Jochen Walz; Alexander Haese; Thomas Steuber; Andreas Erbersdobler; Thorsten Schlomm; Sascha A Ahyai; Eike Currlin; Luc Valiquette; Hans Heinzer; Patrizio Rigatti; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2006-09-11 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexandre R Zlotta; Mesut Remzi; Peter B Snow; Claude C Schulman; Michael Marberger; Bob Djavan Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: T Loch; I Leuschner; C Genberg; K Weichert-Jacobsen; F Küppers; E Yfantis; M Evans; V Tsarev; M Stöckle Journal: Prostate Date: 1999-05-15 Impact factor: 4.104
Authors: Carsten Stephan; Henning Cammann; Axel Semjonow; Eleftherios P Diamandis; Leon F A Wymenga; Michael Lein; Pranav Sinha; Stefan A Loening; Klaus Jung Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Patrik Finne; Ralf Finne; Chris Bangma; Jonas Hugosson; Matti Hakama; Anssi Auvinen; Ulf-Håkan Stenman Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2004-08-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jennifer N Cooper; Lai Wei; Soledad A Fernandez; Peter C Minneci; Katherine J Deans Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Young Jun Choi; Mi Sun Chung; Hyun Jung Koo; Ji Eun Park; Hee Mang Yoon; Seong Ho Park Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-08-23 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Heidi Lindroth; Lisa Bratzke; Suzanne Purvis; Roger Brown; Mark Coburn; Marko Mrkobrada; Matthew T V Chan; Daniel H J Davis; Pratik Pandharipande; Cynthia M Carlsson; Robert D Sanders Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Y van Wijk; I Halilaj; E van Limbergen; S Walsh; L Lutgens; P Lambin; B G L Vanneste Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Scott Steele; Anton Bilchik; John Eberhardt; Philip Kalina; Aviram Nissan; Eric Johnson; Itzhak Avital; Alexander Stojadinovic Journal: Interact J Med Res Date: 2012-09-19