Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 6/2021

01-06-2021 | Prostate Cancer | Original Article

PSA-based machine learning model improves prostate cancer risk stratification in a screening population

Authors: Marlon Perera, Rohan Mirchandani, Nathan Papa, Geoff Breemer, Anna Effeindzourou, Lewis Smith, Peter Swindle, Elliot Smith

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 6/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Context

The majority of prostate cancer diagnoses are facilitated by testing serum Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) levels. Despite this, there are limitations to the diagnostic accuracy of PSA. Consideration of patient demographic factors and biochemical adjuncts to PSA may improve prostate cancer risk stratification. We aimed to develop a contemporary, accurate and cost-effective model based on objective measures to improve the accuracy of prostate cancer risk stratification.

Methods

Data were collated from a local institution and combined with patient data retrieved from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian Cancer screening Trial (PLCO) database. Using a dataset of 4548 patients, a machine learning model was developed and trained using PSA, free-PSA, age and free-PSA to total PSA (FTR) ratio.

Results

The model was trained on a dataset involving 3638 patients and was then tested on a separate set of 910 patients. The model improved prediction for prostate cancer (AUC 0.72) compared to PSA alone (AUC 0.63), age (AUC 0.52), free-PSA (AUC 0.50) and FTR alone (AUC 0.65). When an operating point is chosen such that the sensitivity of the model is 80% the specificity of the model is 45.3%. The benefit in AUC secondary to the model was related to sample size, with AUC of 0.64 observed when a subset of the cohort was assessed.

Conclusions

Development of a dense neural network model improved the diagnostic accuracy in screening for prostate cancer. These results demonstrate an additional utility of machine learning methods in prostate cancer risk stratification when using biochemical parameters.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70:7–30CrossRef Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2020) Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin 70:7–30CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Cabarkapa S, Perera M, McGrath S, Lawrentschuk N (2016) Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: a guide to the guidelines. Prostate Int 4:125–129CrossRef Cabarkapa S, Perera M, McGrath S, Lawrentschuk N (2016) Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: a guide to the guidelines. Prostate Int 4:125–129CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Mansson M et al (2019) A 16-yr follow-up of the european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 76:43–51CrossRef Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Mansson M et al (2019) A 16-yr follow-up of the european randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol 76:43–51CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Yu K et al (2017) Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years. Cancer 15(123):592–599CrossRef Pinsky PF, Prorok PC, Yu K et al (2017) Extended mortality results for prostate cancer screening in the PLCO trial with median follow-up of 15 years. Cancer 15(123):592–599CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Toner L, Papa N, Perera M et al (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer-a comparative study including radical prostatectomy specimens. World J Urol 35:935–941CrossRef Toner L, Papa N, Perera M et al (2017) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for prostate cancer-a comparative study including radical prostatectomy specimens. World J Urol 35:935–941CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 25(389):815–822CrossRef Ahmed HU, El-Shater Bosaily A, Brown LC et al (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 25(389):815–822CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kasivisvanathan V, Emberton M, Moore CM (2018) MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 9(379):589–590 Kasivisvanathan V, Emberton M, Moore CM (2018) MRI-targeted biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N Engl J Med 9(379):589–590
8.
go back to reference Ito K, Yamamoto T, Ohi M, Kurokawa K, Suzuki K, Yamanaka H (2003) Free/total PSA ratio is a powerful predictor of future prostate cancer morbidity in men with initial PSA levels of 4.1 to 10.0 ng/mL. Urology 61:760–764CrossRef Ito K, Yamamoto T, Ohi M, Kurokawa K, Suzuki K, Yamanaka H (2003) Free/total PSA ratio is a powerful predictor of future prostate cancer morbidity in men with initial PSA levels of 4.1 to 10.0 ng/mL. Urology 61:760–764CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Loeb S, Catalona WJ (2014) The prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 6:74–77CrossRef Loeb S, Catalona WJ (2014) The prostate Health Index: a new test for the detection of prostate cancer. Ther Adv Urol 6:74–77CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Nitta S, Tsutsumi M, Sakka S et al (2019) Machine learning methods can more efficiently predict prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen density and prostate-specific antigen velocity. Prostate Int 7:114–118CrossRef Nitta S, Tsutsumi M, Sakka S et al (2019) Machine learning methods can more efficiently predict prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen density and prostate-specific antigen velocity. Prostate Int 7:114–118CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Snow PB, Smith DS, Catalona WJ (1994) Artificial neural networks in the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer: a pilot study. J Urol 152:1923–1926CrossRef Snow PB, Smith DS, Catalona WJ (1994) Artificial neural networks in the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer: a pilot study. J Urol 152:1923–1926CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Stephan C, Xu C, Cammann H et al (2007) Assay-specific artificial neural networks for five different PSA assays and populations with PSA 2–10 ng/ml in 4,480 men. World J Urol 25:95–103CrossRef Stephan C, Xu C, Cammann H et al (2007) Assay-specific artificial neural networks for five different PSA assays and populations with PSA 2–10 ng/ml in 4,480 men. World J Urol 25:95–103CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Stephan C, Xu C, Finne P et al (2007) Comparison of two different artificial neural networks for prostate biopsy indication in two different patient populations. Urology 70:596–601CrossRef Stephan C, Xu C, Finne P et al (2007) Comparison of two different artificial neural networks for prostate biopsy indication in two different patient populations. Urology 70:596–601CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C et al (2005) Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA 294:66–70CrossRef Thompson IM, Ankerst DP, Chi C et al (2005) Operating characteristics of prostate-specific antigen in men with an initial PSA level of 3.0 ng/ml or lower. JAMA 294:66–70CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Goldenberg SL, Nir G, Salcudean SE (2019) A new era: artificial intelligence and machine learning in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 16:391–403CrossRef Goldenberg SL, Nir G, Salcudean SE (2019) A new era: artificial intelligence and machine learning in prostate cancer. Nat Rev Urol 16:391–403CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Carter HB (2013) American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on prostate cancer detection: process and rationale. BJU Int 112:543–547CrossRef Carter HB (2013) American Urological Association (AUA) guideline on prostate cancer detection: process and rationale. BJU Int 112:543–547CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK et al (2018) Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 8(319):1901–1913 Grossman DC, Curry SJ, Owens DK et al (2018) Screening for prostate cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA 8(319):1901–1913
19.
go back to reference McGrath S, Christidis D, Perera M et al (2016) Prostate cancer biomarkers: are we hitting the mark? Prostate Int 4:130–135CrossRef McGrath S, Christidis D, Perera M et al (2016) Prostate cancer biomarkers: are we hitting the mark? Prostate Int 4:130–135CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Loeb S, Sokoll LJ, Broyles DL et al (2013) Prospective multicenter evaluation of the Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index using WHO calibration. J Urol 189:1702–1706CrossRef Loeb S, Sokoll LJ, Broyles DL et al (2013) Prospective multicenter evaluation of the Beckman Coulter Prostate Health Index using WHO calibration. J Urol 189:1702–1706CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Nordstrom T, Vickers A, Assel M, Lilja H, Gronberg H, Eklund M (2015) Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68:139–146CrossRef Nordstrom T, Vickers A, Assel M, Lilja H, Gronberg H, Eklund M (2015) Comparison between the four-kallikrein panel and prostate health index for predicting prostate cancer. Eur Urol 68:139–146CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A et al (2007) Initial biopsy outcome prediction–head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol. 51:1236–1240CrossRef Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A et al (2007) Initial biopsy outcome prediction–head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. Eur Urol. 51:1236–1240CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Cuocolo R, Cipullo MB, Stanzione A et al (2019) Machine learning applications in prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol Exp 7(3):35CrossRef Cuocolo R, Cipullo MB, Stanzione A et al (2019) Machine learning applications in prostate cancer magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol Exp 7(3):35CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Yoo S, Gujrathi I, Haider MA, Khalvati F (2019) Prostate cancer detection using deep convolutional neural networks. Sci Rep 20(9):19518CrossRef Yoo S, Gujrathi I, Haider MA, Khalvati F (2019) Prostate cancer detection using deep convolutional neural networks. Sci Rep 20(9):19518CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Corfield J, Perera M, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2018) (68)Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol 36:519–527CrossRef Corfield J, Perera M, Bolton D, Lawrentschuk N (2018) (68)Ga-prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) for primary staging of high-risk prostate cancer: a systematic review. World J Urol 36:519–527CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M et al (2020) Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 77:403–417CrossRef Perera M, Papa N, Roberts M et al (2020) Gallium-68 prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography in advanced prostate cancer-updated diagnostic utility, sensitivity, specificity, and distribution of prostate-specific membrane antigen-avid lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 77:403–417CrossRef
Metadata
Title
PSA-based machine learning model improves prostate cancer risk stratification in a screening population
Authors
Marlon Perera
Rohan Mirchandani
Nathan Papa
Geoff Breemer
Anna Effeindzourou
Lewis Smith
Peter Swindle
Elliot Smith
Publication date
01-06-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-020-03392-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

World Journal of Urology 6/2021 Go to the issue