Abstract
Background
To investigate the value of machine learning(ML) in enhancing prostate cancer(PCa) diagnosis.
Methods
Consecutive systematic prostate biopsies performed from Jan 2003–June 2017 were used as the training cohort, and prospective biopsies performed from July 2017-November 2019 were used as validation cohort. Men were included if PSA was 0.4–50 ng/mL, and information of digital rectal examination (DRE), Transrectal ultrasound(TRUS) prostate volume, TRUS abnormality were known. Clinically significant PCa(csPCa) was defined as Gleason 3 + 4 or above cancers. Area-under-curve (AUC) of receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) was compared between PSA, PSA density, European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculator (ERSPC-RC), and various ML techniques using PSA, DRE and TRUS information. ML techniques used included XGBoost, LightGBM, Catboost, Support vector machine (SVM), Logistic regression (LR), and Random Forest (RF), where cost sensitive learning was applied.
Results
Training and validation cohorts included 3881 and 778 consecutive men, respectively. RF model performed better than other ML techniques and PSA, PSA density and ERSPC-RC for prediction of PCa or csPCa in the validation cohort. In csPCa prediction, AUC of PSA, PSA density, ERSPC-RC and RF was 0.71, 0.80, 0.83 and 0.88 respectively. At 90–95% sensitivity for csPCa, RF model achieved a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.5–98.0% and avoided 38.3–52.2% unnecessary biopsies. Decision curve analyses (DCA) showed RF model provided net clinical benefit over PSA, PSA density and ERSPC-RC.
Conclusion
By using the same clinical parameters, ML techniques performed better than ERSPC-RC or PSA density in csPCa predictions, and could avoid up to 50% unnecessary biopsies.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 4 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $64.75 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Månsson M, Tammela TLJ, Zappa M, Nelen V, et al. A 16-yr follow-up of the European randomized study of screening for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2019;76:43–51.
Roobol MJ, van Vugt HA, Loeb S, Zhu X, Bul M, Bangma CH, et al. Prediction of prostate cancer risk: the role of prostate volume and digital rectal examination in the ERSPC risk calculators. Eur Urol. 2012;61:577–83.
Poyet C, Nieboer D, Bhindi B, Kulkarni GS, Wiederkehr C, Wettstein MS, et al. Prostate cancer risk prediction using the novel versions of the European Randomised Study for Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators: independent validation and comparison in a contemporary European cohort. BJU Int. 2016;117:401–8.
Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Nieboer D, Teoh JY, Yuen SK, Hou SM, et al. Adaptation and external validation of the European randomised study of screening for prostate cancer risk calculator for the Chinese population. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2017;20:99–104.
Pereira-Azevedo N, Osório L, Fraga A, Roobol MJ. Rotterdam prostate cancer risk calculator: development and usability testing of the mobile phone app. JMIR Cancer. 2017;3:e1.
Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1347–58.
Wang G, Teoh JY, Choi KS. Diagnosis of prostate cancer in a Chinese population by using machine learning methods. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2018;2018:1–4.
Chiu PK, Teoh JY, Chan SY, Chu PS, Man CW, Hou SM, et al. Role of PSA density in diagnosis of prostate cancer in obese men. Int Urol Nephrol. 2014;46:2251–4.
Chiu PK, Roobol MJ, Teoh JY, Lee WM, Yip SY, Hou SM, et al. Prostate health index (PHI) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) predictive models for prostate cancer in the Chinese population and the role of digital rectal examination-estimated prostate volume. Int Urol Nephrol. 2016;48:1631–7.
Wright RE. Logistic regression. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, editors. Reading and understanding Multivariate Statistics: American Psychological Association; 1995. p. 217–44.
Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Mach Learn. 1995;20:273–97.
Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45:5–32.
Safavian SR, Landgrebe D. A survey of decision tree classifier methodology. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern. 1991;21:660–74.
Chen T, Guestrin C. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining; 2016.
Lewis RJ. An introduction to classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Annual Meeting of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine; 2000; San Francisco, California, USA.
Ke G, Meng Q, Finley T, Wang T, Chen W, Ma W, et al. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in neural information processing systems; 2017.
Dorogush AV, Ershov V, Gulin A. CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features support. arXiv preprint arXiv:181011363. 2018.
Thai-Nghe N, Gantner Z, Schmidt-Thieme L. Cost-sensitive learning methods for imbalanced data. The 2010 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN); 2010: IEEE.
Vickers AJ, Elkin EB. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Mak. 2006;26:565–74.
Ankerst DP, Boeck A, Freedland SJ, Thompson IM, Cronin AM, Roobol MJ, et al. Evaluating the PCPT risk calculator in ten international biopsy cohorts: results from the Prostate Biopsy Collaborative Group. World J Urol. 2012;30:181–7.
Chiu PK, Ng CF, Semjonow A, Zhu Y, Vincendeau S, Houlgatte A, et al. A Multicentre Evaluation of the Role of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in Regions with Differing Prevalence of Prostate Cancer: Adjustment of PHI Reference Ranges is Needed for European and Asian Settings. Eur Urol. 2019;75:558–61.
Rodríguez SVM. Diagnostic accuracy of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3) prior to first prostate biopsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Urol Assoc J 2020;14:E214–E219.
Van Neste L, Hendriks RJ, Dijkstra S, Trooskens G, Cornel EB, Jannink SA, et al. Detection of high-grade prostate cancer using a urinary molecular biomarker-based risk score. Eur Urol. 2016;70:740–8.
Kasivisvanathan V, Rannikko AS, Borghi M, Panebianco V, Mynderse LA, Vaarala MH, et al. MRI-targeted or standard biopsy for prostate-cancer diagnosis. N. Engl J Med. 2018;378:1767–77.
Perera M, Mirchandani R, Papa N, Breemer G, Effeindzourou A, Smith L, et al. PSA-based machine learning model improves prostate cancer risk stratification in a screening population. World J Urol. 2020;39:1897–902.
Nitta S, Tsutsumi M, Sakka S, Endo T, Hashimoto K, Hasegawa M, et al. Machine learning methods can more efficiently predict prostate cancer compared with prostate-specific antigen density and prostate-specific antigen velocity. Prostate Int. 2019;7:114–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chiu, P.KF., Shen, X., Wang, G. et al. Enhancement of prostate cancer diagnosis by machine learning techniques: an algorithm development and validation study. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 25, 672–676 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00429-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-021-00429-x
This article is cited by
-
Artificial intelligence applications in prostate cancer
Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases (2024)
-
Body composition predicts hypertension using machine learning methods: a cohort study
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Transfer learning with CNNs for efficient prostate cancer and BPH detection in transrectal ultrasound images
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Improved Prediction of Significant Prostate Cancer Following Repeated Prostate Biopsy by the Random Forest Classifier
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering (2023)
-
Enhanced PSA Density Prediction Accuracy When Based on Machine Learning
Journal of Medical and Biological Engineering (2023)