Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Pre-Operative Prediction of Advanced Prostatic Cancer Using Clinical Decision Support Systems: Accuracy Comparison between Support Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Network

  • Kim, Sang-Youn (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Moon, Sung-Kyoung (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jung, Dae-Chul (Department of Radiology, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center) ;
  • Hwang, Sung-Il (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Sung, Chang-Kyu (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Jeong-Yeon (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seung-Hyup (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Ji-Won (Department of Radiology, Kangwon National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Hak-Jong (Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Published : 2011.10.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. Chandana S, Leung H, Trpkov K. Staging of prostate cancer using automatic feature selection, sampling and Dempster- Shafer fusion. Cancer Inform 2009;7:57-73
  2. Lee HJ, Hwang SI, Han SM, Park SH, Kim SH, Cho JY, et al. Image-based clinical decision support for transrectal ultrasound in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: comparison of multiple logistic regression, artificial neural network, and support vector machine. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1476-1484 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1686-x
  3. Suzuki H, Komiya A, Kamiya N, Imamoto T, Kawamura K, Miura J, et al. Development of a nomogram to predict probability of positive initial prostate biopsy among Japanese patients. Urology 2006;67:131-136 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.040
  4. Snow PB, Smith DS, Catalona WJ. Artificial neural networks in the diagnosis and prognosis of prostate cancer: a pilot study. J Urol 1994;152:1923-1926
  5. Stephan C, Cammann H, Semjonow A, Diamandis EP, Wymenga LF, Lein M, et al. Multicenter evaluation of an artificial neural network to increase the prostate cancer detection rate and reduce unnecessary biopsies. Clin Chem 2002;48:1279-1287
  6. Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Kattan MW, Perrotte P, Valiquette L, Scardino PT, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram predicting the outcome of prostate biopsy based on patient age, digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen. J Urol 2005;173:1930-1934 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158039.94467.5d
  7. Chun FK, Briganti A, Graefen M, Montorsi F, Porter C, Scattoni V, et al. Development and external validation of an extended 10-core biopsy nomogram. Eur Urol 2007;52:436-444 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.039
  8. Finne P, Finne R, Bangma C, Hugosson J, Hakama M, Auvinen A, et al. Algorithms based on prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, digital rectal examination and prostate volume reduce false-positive PSA results in prostate cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2004;111:310-315 https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.20250
  9. Nam RK, Toi A, Klotz LH, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Appu S, et al. Assessing individual risk for prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:3582-3588 https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6450
  10. Bianco FJ Jr. Nomograms and medicine. Eur Urol 2006;50:884-886 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.043
  11. Loch T, Leuschner I, Genberg C, Weichert-Jacobsen K, Kuppers F, Yfantis E, et al. Artificial neural network analysis (ANNA) of prostatic transrectal ultrasound. Prostate 1999;39:198-204 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0045(19990515)39:3<198::AID-PROS8>3.0.CO;2-X
  12. Cortes C, Vapnik V. Support vector networks. Mach Learn 1995;20:273-297
  13. Park EA, Lee HJ, Kim KG, Kim SH, Lee SE, Choe GY. Prediction of pathological stages before prostatectomy in prostate cancer patients: analysis of 12 systematic prostate needle biopsy specimens. Int J Urol 2007;14:704-708 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2007.01795.x
  14. Jiang L, Manry MT. Nonlinear networks for classification. ftp.simtel.net/pub/simtelnet/msdos/calculte/Nuclass706a.zip. Accessed on Aug 12, 2011
  15. Comak E, Arslan A, Turkoglu I. A decision support system based on support vector machines for diagnosis of the heart valve diseases. Comput Biol Med 2007;37:21-27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2005.11.002
  16. Chang C-C, Lin C-J. LIBSVM-A library for support vector machines. http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/-cjlin/libsvm. Accessed on May 22, 2010
  17. McNeal JE. Cancer volume and site of origin of adenocarcinoma in the prostate: relationship to local and distant spread. Hum Pathol 1992;23:258-266 https://doi.org/10.1016/0046-8177(92)90106-D
  18. Gancarczyk KJ, Wu H, McLeod DG, Kane C, Kusuda L, Lance R, et al. Using the percentage of biopsy cores positive for cancer, pretreatment PSA, and highest biopsy Gleason sum to predict pathologic stage after radical prostatectomy: the Center for Prostate Disease Research nomograms. Urology 2003;61:589-595 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(02)02287-2
  19. Sebo TJ, Bock BJ, Cheville JC, Lohse C, Wollan P, Zincke H. The percent of cores positive for cancer in prostate needle biopsy specimens is strongly predictive of tumor stage and volume at radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;163:174-178 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67998-0
  20. Wills ML, Sauvageot J, Partin AW, Gurganus R, Epstein JI. Ability of sextant biopsies to predict radical prostatectomy stage. Urology 1998;51:759-764 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(98)00011-9
  21. Gohji K, Okamoto M, Takenaka A, Nomi M, Fujii A. Predicting the extent of prostate cancer using the combination of systematic biopsy and serum prostate-specific antigen in Japanese men. BJU Int 1999;83:39-42
  22. Errejon A, Crawford ED, Dayhoff J, O'Donnell C, Tewari A, Finkelstein J, et al. Use of artificial neural networks in prostate cancer. Mol Urol 2001;5:153-158 https://doi.org/10.1089/10915360152745821
  23. Zlotta AR, Remzi M, Snow PB, Schulman CC, Marberger M, Djavan B. An artificial neural network for prostate cancer staging when serum prostate specific antigen is 10 ng./ml. or less. J Urol 2003;169:1724-1728 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000062548.28015.f6
  24. Babaian RJ, Fritsche H, Ayala A, Bhadkamkar V, Johnston DA, Naccarato W, et al. Performance of a neural network in detecting prostate cancer in the prostate-specific antigen reflex range of 2.5 to 4.0 ng/mL. Urology 2000;56:1000-1006 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00830-X
  25. Vapnik V. Statistical learning theory, Wiley series on adaptive and learning systems for signal processing, communications and control. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998
  26. Huang YL, Chen DR. Support vector machines in sonography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Clin Imaging 2005;29:179-184 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2004.08.002
  27. Moradi M, Abolmaesumi P, Siemens DR, Sauerbrei EE, Boag AH, Mousavi P. Augmenting detection of prostate cancer in transrectal ultrasound images using SVM and RF time series. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2009;56:2214-2224
  28. Zhu Y, Tan Y, Hua Y, Wang M, Zhang G, Zhang J. Feature selection and performance evaluation of support vector machine (SVM)-based classifier for differentiating benign and malignant pulmonary nodules by computed tomography. J Digit Imaging 2010;23:51-65 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-009-9185-9
  29. Pochet NL, Suykens JA. Support vector machines versus logistic regression: improving prospective performance in clinical decision-making. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27:607-608 https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.2791
  30. Byvatov E, Fechner U, Sadowski J, Schneider G. Comparison of support vector machine and artificial neural network systems for drug/nondrug classification. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:1882-1889 https://doi.org/10.1021/ci0341161
  31. Chang RF, Wu WJ, Moon WK, Chou YH, Chen DR. Support vector machines for diagnosis of breast tumors on US images. Acad Radiol 2003;10:189-197 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1076-6332(03)80044-2
  32. Ravery V, Schmid HP, Toublanc M, Boccon-Gibod L. Is the percentage of cancer in biopsy cores predictive of extracapsular disease in T1-T2 prostate carcinoma? Cancer 1996;78:1079-1084 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960901)78:5<1079::AID-CNCR18>3.0.CO;2-#

Cited by

  1. Using Machine-Learned Bayesian Belief Networks to Predict Perioperative Risk of Clostridium Difficile Infection Following Colon Surgery vol.1, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.2131
  2. Machine learning for improved pathological staging of prostate cancer: A performance comparison on a range of classifiers vol.55, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2011.11.003
  3. Bone mineral density and donor age are not predictive of femoral ring allograft bone mechanical strength vol.32, pp.10, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.22679
  4. Knowledge Bases, Clinical Decision Support Systems, and Rapid Learning in Oncology vol.11, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.2014.000620
  5. Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation? vol.17, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.5.706
  6. Cancers Screening in an Asymptomatic Population by Using Multiple Tumour Markers vol.11, pp.6, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158285
  7. Systematic review of prediction models for delirium in the older adult inpatient vol.8, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019223
  8. Vesicular stomatitis forecasting based on Google Trends vol.13, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192141
  9. Exploring the survival prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma based on the cancer genome atlas database using artificial neural network vol.98, pp.20, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000015642
  10. Decision Support Systems in Prostate Cancer Treatment: An Overview vol.2019, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4961768
  11. Application of three statistical models for predicting the risk of diabetes vol.19, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-019-0456-2
  12. The Application of Artificial Intelligence in Prostate Cancer Management-What Improvements Can Be Expected? A Systematic Review vol.10, pp.18, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10186428
  13. Structural parameters optimization of submerged inlet using least squares support vector machines and improved genetic algorithm-particle swarm optimization approach vol.15, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1080/19942060.2021.1893226
  14. Using Artificial Neural Network to Detect Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder in Children vol.11, pp.13, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11135961