Literature DB >> 36040195

A smart, practical, deep learning-based clinical decision support tool for patients in the prostate-specific antigen gray zone: model development and validation.

Sang Hun Song1,2, Hwanik Kim3, Jung Kwon Kim1,2, Hakmin Lee1,2, Jong Jin Oh1,2, Sang-Chul Lee1,2, Seong Jin Jeong1,2, Sung Kyu Hong1,2, Junghoon Lee4, Sangjun Yoo4, Min-Soo Choo4, Min Chul Cho4, Hwancheol Son4, Hyeon Jeong4, Jungyo Suh5,6, Seok-Soo Byun1,7,8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Despite efforts to improve screening and early detection of prostate cancer (PC), no available biomarker has shown acceptable performance in patients with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) gray zones. We aimed to develop a deep learning-based prediction model with minimized parameters and missing value handling algorithms for PC and clinically significant PC (CSPC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 18 824 prostate biopsies collected between March 2003 and December 2020 from 2 databases, resulting in 12 739 cases in the PSA gray zone of 2.0-10.0 ng/mL. Dense neural network (DNN) and extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost) models for PC and CSPC were developed with 5-fold cross-validation. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) was compared with that of serum PSA, PSA density, free PSA (fPSA) portion, and prostate health index (PHI).
RESULTS: The AUROC values in the DNN model with the imputation of missing values were 0.739 and 0.708 (PC) and 0.769 and 0.742 (CSPC) in internal and external validation, whereas those of the non-imputed dataset were 0.740 and 0.771 (PC) and 0.807 and 0.771 (CSPC), respectively. The performance of the DNN model was like that of the XGBoost model, but better than all tested clinical biomarkers for both PC and CSPC. The developed DNN model outperformed PHI, serum PSA, and percent-fPSA with or without missing value imputation. DISCUSSION: DNN models for missing value imputation can be used to predict PC and CSPC. Further validation in real-life scenarios are need to recommend for actual implementation, but the results from our study support the increasing role of deep learning analytics in the clinical setting.
CONCLUSIONS: A deep learning model for PC and CSPC in PSA gray zones using minimal, routinely used clinical parameter variables and data imputation of missing values was successfully developed and validated.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  decision support tool; deep learning; missing value imputation; prediction model; prostate cancer

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36040195      PMCID: PMC9552291          DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc        ISSN: 1067-5027            Impact factor:   7.942


  27 in total

1.  Learning curves for stochastic gradient descent in linear feedforward networks.

Authors:  Justin Werfel; Xiaohui Xie; H Sebastian Seung
Journal:  Neural Comput       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.026

Review 2.  The effect of the USPSTF PSA screening recommendation on prostate cancer incidence patterns in the USA.

Authors:  Katherine Fleshner; Sigrid V Carlsson; Monique J Roobol
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2016-12-20       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Use of the percentage of free prostate-specific antigen to enhance differentiation of prostate cancer from benign prostatic disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

Authors:  W J Catalona; A W Partin; K M Slawin; M K Brawer; R C Flanigan; A Patel; J P Richie; J B deKernion; P C Walsh; P T Scardino; P H Lange; E N Subong; R E Parson; G H Gasior; K G Loveland; P C Southwick
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-05-20       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach.

Authors:  E R DeLong; D M DeLong; D L Clarke-Pearson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Development and validation of an explainable artificial intelligence-based decision-supporting tool for prostate biopsy.

Authors:  Jungyo Suh; Sangjun Yoo; Juhyun Park; Sung Yong Cho; Min Chul Cho; Hwancheol Son; Hyeon Jeong
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2020-08-04       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Prostate-specific antigen cutoff of 2.6 ng/mL for prostate cancer screening is associated with favorable pathologic tumor features.

Authors:  Jason S Krumholtz; Gustavo F Carvalhal; Christian G Ramos; Deborah S Smith; Phataraporn Thorson; Yan Yan; Peter A Humphrey; Kimberly A Roehl; William J Catalona
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 7.  Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement.

Authors:  G S Collins; J B Reitsma; D G Altman; K G M Moons
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts.

Authors:  Janus Christian Jakobsen; Christian Gluud; Jørn Wetterslev; Per Winkel
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-12-06       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 9.  Beyond PSA: The Role of Prostate Health Index (phi).

Authors:  Matteo Ferro; Ottavio De Cobelli; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Angelo Porreca; Gian Maria Busetto; Francesco Cantiello; Rocco Damiano; Riccardo Autorino; Gennaro Musi; Mihai Dorin Vartolomei; Matteo Muto; Daniela Terracciano
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 10.  Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO Guideline. Part I: Risk Stratification, Shared Decision Making, and Care Options.

Authors:  Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-12-15       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.