Have a personal or library account? Click to login

Decision Tree Analysis for Prostate Cancer Prediction in Patients with Serum PSA 10 ng/ml or Less

EABR. Experimental and Applied Biomedical Research
Volume 21 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)
By:
Open Access
|Jun 2020

References

  1. 1. Arnold M, Karim-Kos HE, Coebergh JW, Byrnes G, Antilla A, Ferlay J, et al. (2015). Recent trends in incidence of five common cancers in 26 European countries since 1988:Analysis of the European Cancer Observatory.Eur J Cancer.51(9):1164-87.DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.002.10.1016/j.ejca.2013.09.00224120180
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  2. 2. Bul M, Zhu X, Valdagni R, Pickles T, Kakehi Y, Ran-nikko A, et al. (2013). Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. Eur Urol. 63(4):597-603. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.005.10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.00523159452
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  3. 3. Catalona WJ, Southwick PC, Slawin KM, Partin AW, Brawer MK, Flanigan RC, et al. (2000). Comparison of percent free PSA, PSA density, and age-specific PSA cutoffs for prostate cancer detection and staging. Urology. 1;56(2):255-60.10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00637-3
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  4. 4. Carter HB, & Pearson JD. (1997). Prostate-specific antigen velocity and repeated measures of prostate-specific antigen. Urol Clin North Am. 24(2):333-8.10.1016/S0094-0143(05)70380-3
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  5. 5. Benson MC, Whang IS, Pantuck A, Ring K, Kaplan SA, Olsson CA, et al. (1992). Prostate specific antigen density: a means of distinguishing benign prostatic hyper-trophy and prostate cancer. J Urol.147(3 Pt 2):815-6.10.1016/S0022-5347(17)37393-7
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  6. 6. Djavan B, Remzi M, Zlotta A, Seitz C, Snow P, & Marberger M. (2002). Novel artificial neural network for early detection of prostate cancer. Clin.Onkol. 20(4):921-929.DOI:10.1200/JCO.2002.20.4.921.10.1200/JCO.2002.20.4.92111844812
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  7. 7. Garzotto M, Hudson RG, Peters L, Hsieh YC, Barrera E, Mori M., et al. (2003). Predictive modeling for the presence of prostate carcinoma using clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound parameters in patients with prostate specific antigen levels < or = 10 ng/ml. Cancer. 1;98(7):1417-22.DOI:10.1002/cncr.11668.10.1002/cncr.1166814508828
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  8. 8. Filella X, & Giménez N. (2013). Evaluation of [-2] proPSA and Prostate Health Index (phi) for the detection of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Chem Lab Med. 51(4):729-39. DOI:10.1515/cclm-2012-0410.10.1515/cclm-2012-041023154423
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  9. 9. Parekh DJ, Punnen S, Sjoberg DD, Asroff SW, Bailen JL, Cochran JS, et al. (2015). A multi-institutional prospective trial in the USA confirms that the 4Kscore accurately identifies men with high-grade prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 68(3):464-70.DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.021.10.1016/j.eururo.2014.10.02125454615
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  10. 10. Tomlins SA, Day JR, Lonigro RJ, Hovelson DH, Siddiqui J, Kunju LP, et al. (2016). Urine TMPRSS2:ERG Plus PCA3 for Individualized Prostate Cancer Risk Assessment. Eur Urol. 70(1):45-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.039.10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.039464472425985884
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  11. 11. Lughezzani G, Lazzeri M, Larcher A, Lista G, Scattoni V, Cestari A, et al. (2012). Development and internal validation of a Prostate Health Index based nomogram for predicting prostate cancer at extended biopsy. J Urol. 188(4):1144-50.DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.025.10.1016/j.juro.2012.06.02522901589
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  12. 12. Chun FK, Graefen M, Briganti A, Gallina A, Hopp J, Kattan MW, et al. (2006). Initial biopsy outcome prediction--head-to-head comparison of a logistic regression-based nomogram versus artificial neural network. EurUrol. 51(5):1236-40.DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.021.10.1016/j.eururo.2006.07.02116945477
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  13. 13. Karakiewicz PI, Benayoun S, Kattan MW, Perrotte P, Valiquette L, Scardino PT, et al. (2005). 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. 173(6):1930-4.DOI:10.1097/01. ju.0000158039.94467.5d.10.1097/01
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  14. 14. Ankerst DP, Hoefler J, Bock S, Goodman PJ, Vickers A, Hernandez J, et al. (2014). Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator 2.0 for the prediction of lowvs high-grade prostate cancer.Urology.83(6):1362-7. DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035.10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.035
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  15. 15. Roobol MJ, Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Jones JS, Kattan MW, Klein EA, et al. (2012). Importance of prostate volume in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) risk calculators: results from the prostate biopsy collaborative group. World J Urol. 30(2):149–55. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y.10.1007/s00345-011-0804-y
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  16. 16. Park JY, Yoon S, Park MS, Choi H, Bae JH, Moon DG, et al. (2017), Development and External Validation of the Korean Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator for High-Grade Prostate Cancer: Comparison with Two Western Risk Calculators in an Asian Cohort. PLoS One.12(1):e0168917.DOI:10.1371/journal. pone.0168917.10.1371/journal.pone.0168917
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  17. 17. Spurgeon SE, Hsieh YC, Rivadinera A, Beer TM, Mori M, & Garzotto M. (2006). Classification and regression tree analysis for the prediction of aggressive prostate cancer on biopsy. J Urol. 175(3 Pt 1):918-22. DOI:10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00353-8.10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00353-8
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  18. 18. Garzotto M, Beer TM, Hudson RG, Peters L, Hsieh YC, Barrera E, et al. (2005). Improved detection of prostate cancer using classification and regression tree analysis. J Clin Oncol. 23(19):4322-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.136.10.1200/JCO.2005.11.13615781880
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  19. 19. Briganti A, Passoni N, Ferrari M, Capitanio U, Suardi N, Gallina A, et al. (2010). When to perform bone scan in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer: external validation of the currently available guidelines and proposal of a novel risk stratification tool. Eur Urol. 57(4):551-8.DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.023.10.1016/j.eururo.2009.12.02320034730
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  20. 20. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, & Clarke-Pearson DL. (1988). Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 44(3):837-45.10.2307/2531595
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  21. 21. Hwang SH, Pyo T, Oh HB, Park HJ, & Lee KJ. (2013). Combined application of information theory on laboratory results with classification and regression tree analysis: analysis of unnecessary biopsy for prostate cancer. Clin Chim Acta. 415:133-7. DOI: 10.1016/j. cca.2012.10.012.10.1016/j.cca.2012.10.012
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  22. 22. Milkovic B, Dzamic Z, Pejcic T, Kajmakovic B, Nikolic D, Cirovic D, et al. (2014). Evaluation of free-to-total prostate specific antigen (F/T PSA), prostate specific antigen density (PSAD) and (F/T)/PSAD sensitivity on reduction of unnecessary prostate biopsies for patients with PSA in gray zone. Ann Ital Chir.85(5):448-53.
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  23. 23. Sfoungaristos S, & Perimenis P. (2012) PSA density is superior than PSA and Gleason score for adverse pathologic features prediction in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Can Urol Assoc J. 6(1):46-50. DOI:10.5489/cuaj.11079.10.5489/cuaj.329
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  24. 24. Nowroozi MR, Momeni SA, Ohadian Moghadam S, Ayati E, Mortazavi A, Arfae S, et al. (2016). Prostate-Specific Antigen Density and Gleason Score Predict Adverse Pathologic Features in Patients with Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer. Nephrourol. Mon. 8(6):e39984. eCollection.DOI:10.5812/numonthly.39984.10.5812/numonthly.39984512023427896239
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  25. 25. Kotb AF, Tanguay S, Luz MA, Kassouf W, & Aprikian AG. (2011). Relationship between initial PSA density with future PSA kinetics and repeat biopsies in men with prostate cancer on active surveillance. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.14(1):53-7.DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2010.36.10.1038/pcan.2010.36303698120938463
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  26. 26. Sun L, Caire AA, Robertson CN, George DJ, Polascik TJ, Maloney KE, et al. (2009). Men older than 70 years have higher risk prostate cancer and poorer survival in the early and late prostate specific antigen eras. J Urol.182(5):2242-8.DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.034.10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.03419758616
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  27. 27. Pepe P, & Pennisi M. (2015). Gleason score stratification according to age at diagnosis in 1028 men. Contemp Oncol (Pozn). 19(6):471-3. DOI: 10.5114/wo.2015.56654.10.5114/wo.2015.56654473145426843845
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  28. 28. Louie KS, Seigneurin A, Cathcart P, & Sasieni P. (2015). Do prostate cancer risk models improve the predictive accuracy of PSA screening?. A metaanalysis. Ann Oncol.26(5):848–64.DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdu525.10.1093/annonc/mdu52525403590
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  29. 29. Bjurlin MA, & Taneja SS. (2014). Standards for prostate biopsy. Curr Opin Urol. 24(2):155-61. DOI: 10.1097/MOU.0000000000000031.10.1097/MOU.0000000000000031414219624451092
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  30. 30. Schiavina R, Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, Romagnoli D, Diazzi D,Giunchi F, et al. (2015). The biopsy Gleason score 3+4 in a single core does not necessarily reflect an unfavourable pathological disease after radical prostatectomy in comparison with biopsy Gleason score 3+3: looking for larger selection criteria for active surveillance candidates.Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis.18(3):270-5. DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2015.21.10.1038/pcan.2015.2126055663
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
  31. 31. Kim SB, Cho IC, & Min SK. (2014). Prostate volume measurement by transrectal ultrasonography: comparison of height obtained by use of transaxial and midsagittal scanning. Korean J Urol. 55(7):470-4. DOI: 10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.470.10.4111/kju.2014.55.7.470410111725045446
    Search in Google ScholarBack to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/sjecr-2018-0039 | Journal eISSN: 2956-2090 | Journal ISSN: 2956-0454
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 43 - 50
Submitted on: Dec 7, 2017
Accepted on: Mar 3, 2018
Published on: Jun 5, 2020
Published by: Sciendo
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 times per year
Keywords:
Prostatic neoplasms,
prostate-specific antigen density,
decision tree
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Clinical medicine, other

© 2020 Damjan N Pantic, Milorad M Stojadinovic, Miroslav M Stojadinovic, published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 21 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)Next article