Takumi Takeuchi1, Mami Hattori-Kato1, Yumiko Okuno1, Satoshi Iwai2, Koji Mikami1. 1. Department of Urology, Japan Organization of Occupational Health and Safety, Kanto Rosai Hospital, Kawasaki, Japan. 2. Department of Medical Informatics and Economics, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: To predict the rate of prostate cancer detection on prostate biopsy more accurately, the performance of deep learning using a multilayer artificial neural network was investigated. METHODS: A total of 334 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before ultrasonography guided transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy were enrolled in the analysis. Twenty-two non-selected variables, as well as selected ones by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression analysis and by stepwise logistic regression analysis, were input into the constructed multilayer artificial neural network (ANN) programs; 232 patients were used as training cases of ANN programs and the remaining 102 patients were for the test to output the probability of prostate cancer existence, accuracy of prostate cancer prediction, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with the learned model. RESULTS: With any prostate cancer objective variable, Lasso and stepwise regression analyses selected 12 and nine explanatory variables, respectively, from 22. Using trained ANNs with multiple hidden layers, the accuracy of predicting any prostate cancer in test samples was about 5-10% higher compared to that with logistic regression analysis (LR). The area under the curves (AUC) with multilayer ANN were significantly larger on inputting variables that were selected by the stepwise LR compared with the AUC with LR. The ANN had a higher net benefit than LR between prostate cancer probability cutoff values of 0.38 and 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: ANN accurately predicted prostate cancer without biopsy marginally better than LR. However, for clinical application, ANN performance may still need improvement.
INTRODUCTION: To predict the rate of prostate cancer detection on prostate biopsy more accurately, the performance of deep learning using a multilayer artificial neural network was investigated. METHODS: A total of 334 patients who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before ultrasonography guided transrectal 12-core prostate biopsy were enrolled in the analysis. Twenty-two non-selected variables, as well as selected ones by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression analysis and by stepwise logistic regression analysis, were input into the constructed multilayer artificial neural network (ANN) programs; 232 patients were used as training cases of ANN programs and the remaining 102 patients were for the test to output the probability of prostate cancer existence, accuracy of prostate cancer prediction, and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve with the learned model. RESULTS: With any prostate cancer objective variable, Lasso and stepwise regression analyses selected 12 and nine explanatory variables, respectively, from 22. Using trained ANNs with multiple hidden layers, the accuracy of predicting any prostate cancer in test samples was about 5-10% higher compared to that with logistic regression analysis (LR). The area under the curves (AUC) with multilayer ANN were significantly larger on inputting variables that were selected by the stepwise LR compared with the AUC with LR. The ANN had a higher net benefit than LR between prostate cancer probability cutoff values of 0.38 and 0.6. CONCLUSIONS: ANN accurately predicted prostate cancer without biopsy marginally better than LR. However, for clinical application, ANN performance may still need improvement.
Authors: Felix K-H Chun; Alberto Briganti; Markus Graefen; Christopher Porter; Francesco Montorsi; Alexander Haese; Vincenzo Scattoni; Lester Borden; Thomas Steuber; Andrea Salonia; Thorsten Schlomm; Kalyan Latchemsetty; Jochen Walz; Jason Kim; Christian Eichelberg; Eike Currlin; Sascha A Ahyai; Andreas Erbersdobler; Luc Valiquette; Hans Heinzer; Patrizio Rigatti; Hartwig Huland; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: J Urol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Caroline M Moore; Veeru Kasivisvanathan; Scott Eggener; Mark Emberton; Jurgen J Fütterer; Inderbir S Gill; Robert L Grubb Iii; Boris Hadaschik; Laurence Klotz; Daniel J A Margolis; Leonard S Marks; Jonathan Melamed; Aytekin Oto; Suzanne L Palmer; Peter Pinto; Philippe Puech; Shonit Punwani; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ivo G Schoots; Richard Simon; Samir S Taneja; Baris Turkbey; Osamu Ukimura; Jan van der Meulen; Arnauld Villers; Yuji Watanabe Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Osama M Zaytoun; Michael W Kattan; Ayman S Moussa; Jianbo Li; Changhong Yu; J Stephen Jones Journal: Urology Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Ernesto Lopez-Corona; Makoto Ohori; Peter T Scardino; Victor E Reuter; Mithat Gonen; Michael W Kattan Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Fei Dong; Michael W Kattan; Ewout W Steyerberg; J Stephen Jones; Andrew J Stephenson; Fritz H Schröder; Eric A Klein Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-05-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael W Kattan; James A Eastham; Thomas M Wheeler; Norio Maru; Peter T Scardino; Andreas Erbersdobler; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland; Hideshige Koh; Shahrokh F Shariat; Kevin M Slawin; Makoto Ohori Journal: J Urol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jens Hansen; Marco Auprich; Sascha A Ahyai; Alexandre de la Taille; Hendrik van Poppel; Michael Marberger; Arnulf Stenzl; Peter F A Mulders; Hartwig Huland; Margit Fisch; Clement-Claude Abbou; Jack A Schalken; Yves Fradet; Leonard S Marks; William Ellis; Alan W Partin; Karl Pummer; Markus Graefen; Alexander Haese; Jochen Walz; Alberto Briganti; Shahrokh F Shariat; Felix K Chun Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-07-20 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sneha Parekh; Parita Ratnani; Ugo Falagario; Dara Lundon; Deepshikha Kewlani; Jordan Nasri; Zach Dovey; Dimitrios Stroumbakis; Daniel Ranti; Ralph Grauer; Stanislaw Sobotka; Adriana Pedraza; Vinayak Wagaskar; Lajja Mistry; Ivan Jambor; Anna Lantz; Otto Ettala; Armando Stabile; Pekka Taimen; Hannu J Aronen; Juha Knaapila; Ileana Montoya Perez; Giorgio Gandaglia; Alberto Martini; Wolfgang Picker; Erik Haug; Luigi Cormio; Tobias Nordström; Alberto Briganti; Peter J Boström; Giuseppe Carrieri; Kenneth Haines; Michael A Gorin; Peter Wiklund; Mani Menon; Ash Tewari Journal: Eur Urol Open Sci Date: 2022-05-20
Authors: Palanivel Velmurugan; Vinayagam Mohanavel; Anupama Shrestha; Subpiramaniyam Sivakumar; Atif Abdulwahab A Oyouni; Osama M Al-Amer; Othman R Alzahrani; Mohammed I Alasseiri; Abdullah Hamadi; Adel Ibrahim Alalawy Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.246
Authors: Mircea Sebastian Şerbănescu; Carmen Nicoleta Oancea; Costin Teodor Streba; Iancu Emil Pleşea; Daniel Pirici; Liliana Streba; Răzvan Mihail Pleşea Journal: Rom J Morphol Embryol Date: 2020 Apr-Jun Impact factor: 1.033
Authors: G Ramkumar; P Bhuvaneswari; R Radhika; S Saranya; S Vijayalakshmi; M Karpagam; Florin Wilfred Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 3.009
Authors: Indrani Bhattacharya; Yash S Khandwala; Sulaiman Vesal; Wei Shao; Qianye Yang; Simon J C Soerensen; Richard E Fan; Pejman Ghanouni; Christian A Kunder; James D Brooks; Yipeng Hu; Mirabela Rusu; Geoffrey A Sonn Journal: Ther Adv Urol Date: 2022-10-10