Prediction model of Gleason score upgrading after radical prostatectomy based on a Bayesian network
Author:
Wang Guipeng1, Wang Xinning1, Du Haotian1, Wang Yaozhong2, Sun Liguo2, Zhang Mingxin1, Li Shengxian1, Jia Yuefeng1, Yang Xuecheng1
Affiliation:
1. The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University 2. JuXian People’s Hospital
Abstract
Abstract
Objective To explore the clinical value of the Gleason score upgrading (GSU)prediction model after radical prostatectomy (RP) based on a Bayesian network.
Methods The data of 356 patients who underwent prostate biopsy and RP in our hospital from January 2018 to May 2021 were retrospectively analysed. Fourteen risk factors,including age, body mass index (BMI), total prostate-specific antigen (tPSA), prostate volume, total prostate-specific antigen density (PSAD), the number and proportion of positive biopsy cores, PI-RADS score, clinical stage and postoperative pathological characteristics, were included in the analysis. Data were used to establish a prediction model for Gleason score elevation based on the tree augmented naive (TAN) Bayesian algorithm. Moreover, the Bayesia Lab validation function was used to calculate the importance of polymorphic Birnbaum according to the results of the posterior analysis and to obtain the importance of each risk factor.
ResultsIn the overall cohort, 110 patients (30.89%) had GSU. Based on all of the risk factors that were included in this study, the AUC of the model was 81.06%, and the accuracy was 76.64%. The importance ranking results showed that lymphatic metastasis, the number of positive biopsy cores, ISUP stage and PI-RADS score were the top four influencing factors for GSU after RP.
ConclusionsThe prediction model of GSU after RP based on a Bayesian network has high accuracy andcan more accurately evaluate the Gleason score of prostate biopsy specimens and guide treatment decisions.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference25 articles.
1. 1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R. L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F., Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. Ca-a Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2021, 71 (3), 209–249. 2. 2. Zheng, R.; Zhang, S.; Zeng, H.; Wang, S.; Sun, K.; Chen, R.; Li, L.; Wei, W.; He, J., Cancer incidence and mortality in China, 2016. Journal of the National Cancer Center 2022, 2 (1), 1–9. 3. 3. Epstein, J.; Egevad, L.; Amin, M.; Delahunt, B.; Srigley, J.; Humphrey, P.;, J. T. A. j. o. s. p., The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Gleason Grading of Prostatic Carcinoma: Definition of Grading Patterns and Proposal for a New Grading System. European Journal of Surgical Oncology 2016, 40 (2), 244 − 52. 4. 4. Cohen, M. S.; Hanley, R. S.; Kurteva, T.; Ruthazer, R.; Silverman, M. L.; Sorcini, A.; Hamawy, K.; Roth, R. A.; Tuerk, I.; Libertino, J. A., Comparing the Gleason prostate biopsy and Gleason prostatectomy grading system: The Lahey Clinic Medical Center experience and an international meta-analysis. European Urology 2008, 54 (2), 371–381. 5. 5. De Nunzio, C.; Pastore, A. L.; Lombardo, R.; Simone, G.; Leonardo, C.; Mastroianni, R.; Collura, D.; Muto, G.; Gallucci, M.; Carbone, A.; Fuschi, A.; Dutto, L.; Witt, J. H.; De Dominicis, C.; Tubaro, A., The new Epstein gleason score classification significantly reduces upgrading in prostate cancer patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 2018, 44 (6), 835–839.
|
|