Constructing and Validating Models for Predicting Gleason Grade Group Upgrading Following Radical Prostatectomy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparison between Machine Learning Algorithms and Conventional Logistic Regression.
{"title":"Constructing and Validating Models for Predicting Gleason Grade Group Upgrading Following Radical Prostatectomy in Localized Prostate Cancer: A Comparison between Machine Learning Algorithms and Conventional Logistic Regression.","authors":"Qian Gui, Xin Wang, Dandan Wu, Yonglian Guo","doi":"10.1159/000543492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The occurrence of Gleason grade group upgrading (GGU) significantly impacts both treatment strategy development. We aim to develop an optimal predictive model to assess the risk of GGU in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa), by comparing traditional logistic regression (LR) with seven machine learning algorithms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective collection of clinical data was conducted on patients who underwent RP at Wuhan Central Hospital (January 2017 to December 2023, n=177) and Jiangxi Cancer Hospital (July 2019 to February 2024, n=87). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was employed to filter the clinical characteristics of patients. Subsequently, models were conducted using multivariate LR, along with seven diverse machine learning algorithms: eXtreme Gradient Boosting, Decision Tree, Multilayer Perceptron, Naive Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine. By employing the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, brier score, recall, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis, we compared the predictive capabilities and clinical utility of eight models to identify the optimal one.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the evaluation of eight models, the LR model demonstrated superior performance. In the modeling set, it achieved an AUC of 0.826 (95% CI: 0.808 - 0.845), accuracy of 0.765, and a brier score of 0.167. In the validation set, it kept good results with an AUC of 0.819 (95% CI: 0.758 - 0.880), accuracy of 0.725, and a brier score of 0.180. The calibration curve, brier score, and DCA also demonstrated the excellent calibration and net benefit of the LR model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After conducting a comprehensive multi-model comparison, we concluded that the LR model was optimal for predicting GGU, which was confirmed by external validation. Our study also revealed percent free prostate-specific antigen density as a predictive factor for GGU, offering a novel approach for managing localized PCa patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19497,"journal":{"name":"Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000543492","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: The occurrence of Gleason grade group upgrading (GGU) significantly impacts both treatment strategy development. We aim to develop an optimal predictive model to assess the risk of GGU in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa), by comparing traditional logistic regression (LR) with seven machine learning algorithms.
Methods: A retrospective collection of clinical data was conducted on patients who underwent RP at Wuhan Central Hospital (January 2017 to December 2023, n=177) and Jiangxi Cancer Hospital (July 2019 to February 2024, n=87). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression was employed to filter the clinical characteristics of patients. Subsequently, models were conducted using multivariate LR, along with seven diverse machine learning algorithms: eXtreme Gradient Boosting, Decision Tree, Multilayer Perceptron, Naive Bayes, k-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machine. By employing the receiver operating characteristic curve, accuracy, brier score, recall, calibration curve, and decision curve analysis, we compared the predictive capabilities and clinical utility of eight models to identify the optimal one.
Results: In the evaluation of eight models, the LR model demonstrated superior performance. In the modeling set, it achieved an AUC of 0.826 (95% CI: 0.808 - 0.845), accuracy of 0.765, and a brier score of 0.167. In the validation set, it kept good results with an AUC of 0.819 (95% CI: 0.758 - 0.880), accuracy of 0.725, and a brier score of 0.180. The calibration curve, brier score, and DCA also demonstrated the excellent calibration and net benefit of the LR model.
Conclusions: After conducting a comprehensive multi-model comparison, we concluded that the LR model was optimal for predicting GGU, which was confirmed by external validation. Our study also revealed percent free prostate-specific antigen density as a predictive factor for GGU, offering a novel approach for managing localized PCa patients.
期刊介绍:
Although laboratory and clinical cancer research need to be closely linked, observations at the basic level often remain removed from medical applications. This journal works to accelerate the translation of experimental results into the clinic, and back again into the laboratory for further investigation. The fundamental purpose of this effort is to advance clinically-relevant knowledge of cancer, and improve the outcome of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of malignant disease. The journal publishes significant clinical studies from cancer programs around the world, along with important translational laboratory findings, mini-reviews (invited and submitted) and in-depth discussions of evolving and controversial topics in the oncology arena. A unique feature of the journal is a new section which focuses on rapid peer-review and subsequent publication of short reports of phase 1 and phase 2 clinical cancer trials, with a goal of insuring that high-quality clinical cancer research quickly enters the public domain, regardless of the trial’s ultimate conclusions regarding efficacy or toxicity.