Estimation of total prostate specific antigen values through artificial intelligence modelling

It has been indicated that total prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening, one of the serum markers used for the diagnosis of prostate cancer, has been clinically beneficial. In this research, it was aimed to estimate the total PSA values by Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) artificial neural network (ANN) model. Data on total PSA values in this study (n = 1422) were randomly selected using the structured query language (SQL) from the database of patients records of Urology Department of Medical School at Inonu University. Total PSA values as a target/dependent variable, and age (year), blood group (A/B/0/AB), Exitus (EX) status (alive/death), Lymphocyte (LY) (%), Hemoglobin (HGB) (g / dL), Neutrophil (NE) (%), Albumin (g / dL), Calcium (mg / dL), Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin (MCH), Leukocyte count (WBC) (103 / ml), Platelet (PLT) (103/ ml) as predictor variables were evaluated in the analyses. Outlier/extreme observations were analysed, and quantitative variables were rescaled by the transformation of Z-score or Box-Cox, and the MLP ANN model was constructed to estimate the total PSA values after variable selection method was used. Estimation performance of the model was examined by the values of mean absolute error, standard deviation and correlation coefficient. The MLP ANN model was created using a total of 1422 data sets as 993 of which were in training and 429 in the testing. Values of the mean absolute error, standard deviation, and correlation coefficient were calculated for training data set as; 0.744, 0.895 and 0.452; for the test data set as; 0.773, 0.935 and 0.355. The estimated accuracy of the generated model is predicted as 20.3%. In the MLP ANN model, the importance levels of the variables were obtained as 0.33 for HGB, 0.22 for NE, 0.16 for Calcium, 0.13 for PLT, 0.10 for age and 0.06 for EX. The MLP ANN model was established for the estimation of the total PSA values based on the selected variables, and calculated the importance levels of the related variables. Better prediction results in the estimation of total PSA values can be provided by using different additional variables, various resampling methods and alternative models.

PDF

___

Altunoluk B, Bahar MR, Eren M, et al. Prostat kanseri tanısında prostat spesifik antijen ve parmakla rektal muayene bulgularının rolünün değerlendirilmesi. JCEI. 2012;3(1):66-70.

Erol C. Prostat kanserinde görüntüleme teknikleri. Turkiye Klinikleri J Urology- Special Topics. 2017;10(2):121-32.

Çolak MC, Çolak C, Kocaturk H, et al. Predicting coronary artery disease using different artificial neural network models/Koroner arter hastaliginin degisik yapay sinir agi modelleri lie tahmini. The Anatol J Cardiol. 2008;8(4):249-55.

Gulkesen K, Koksal I, Bilge U, et al. Comparison of methods for prediction of prostate cancer in Turkish men with PSA levels of 0-10 ng/mL. J BUON. 2010;15(3):537-42.

Lawrentschuk N, Lockwood G, Davies P, et al. Predicting prostate biopsy outcome: artificial neural networks and polychotomous regression are equivalent models. Int Urol Nephrol. 2011;43(1):23-30.

Kaynar O, Taştan S. Zaman serisi analizinde Mlp yapay sinir ağları ve arıma modelinin karşılaştırılması. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009(33):161-72.

Lee HJ, Hwang SI, Han S-m, 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(6):1476-84.

Kaya MO, Çolak C, Özdemir E. Prostat spesifik antijeni yardımı ile prostat kanserinin değişik yapay sinir ağı modelleri ile tahmini. İnönü Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013(1):19-22.

Psaltis D, Sideris A, Yamamura AA. A multilayered neural network controller. IEEE control systems magazine. 1988;8(2):17-21.

Gör İ,Çok katmanlı algılayıcı yapay sinir ağı ile lineer diferansiyel denklem sisteminin çözümü. 18 Akademik Bilişim Konferansı, 30 Ocak-5 Şubat 2016. Aydın, Türkiye, 236-240.

Stephan C, Jung K, Lein M. Editorial Comment. J Urol. 2017;180(2):543.

Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ornstein DK. Prostate cancer detection in men with serum PSA concentrations of 2.6 to 4.0 ng/mL and benign prostate examination: enhancement of specificity with free PSA measurements. Jama. 1997;277(18):1452-5.

Armstrong AJ, Tannock IF, Wit Rd, et al. The development of risk groups in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer based on risk factors for PSA decline and survival. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(3):517-25.

Smaletz O, Scher HI, Small EJ, et al. Nomogram for overall survival of patients with progressive metastatic prostate cancer after castration. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(19):3972-82.

Sonpavde G, Pond GR, Armstrong AJ, et al. Prognostic impact of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2014;12(5):317-24.

Templeton AJ, Pezaro C, Omlin A, et al. Simple prognostic score for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with incorporation of neutrophil-tolymphocyte ratio. Cancer. 2014;120(21):3346-52.

Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Wolk A, et al. Calcium and fructose intake in relation to risk of prostate cancer. Cancer. 1998;58(3):442-7.

Koh K, Sesso H, Paffenbarger R, et al. Dairy products, calcium and prostate cancer risk. Br J Cancer. 2006;95(11):1582-5.

Prandoni P, Falanga A, Piccioli A. Cancer and venous thromboembolism. Lancet Oncol. 2005;6(6):401-10.

Efstathiou JA, Bae K, Shipley WU, et al. Cardiovascular mortality after androgen deprivation therapy for locally advanced prostate cancer: RTOG 8531. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(1):92-9.

Middleton RG, Thompson IM, Austenfeld MS, et al. Prostate cancer clinical guidelines panel summary report on the management of clinically localized prostate cancer. J urol. 1995;154(6):2144-8.

Andriole GL, Crawford ED, Grubb RL 3rd, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310-9.