A neural network predicts progression for men with Gleason score 3+4 versus 4+3 tumors after radical prostatectomy

被引:52
|
作者
Han, M
Snow, PB
Epstein, JI
Chan, TY
Jones, KA
Walsh, PC
Partin, AW
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, James Buchanan Brady Urol Inst, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Urol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
[3] Xaim Inc, Colorado Springs, CO USA
[4] Johns Hopkins Med Inst, Dept Pathol, Baltimore, MD 21205 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00815-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives. To determine the significance of Gleason scores 3+4 (GS3+4) versus 4+3 (GS4+3) with respect to biochemical recurrence in a retrospective review of a series of men with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) and to develop and test an artificial neural network (ANN) to predict the biochemical recurrence after surgery for this group of men using the pathologic and clinical data. Methods. From 1982 to 1998, 600 men had pathologic Gleason score 7 disease without lymph node or seminal vesicle involvement. We analyzed the freedom from biochemical (prostate-specific antigen) progression after RRP on 564 of these men on the basis of their GS3+4 versus GS4+3 (Gleason 7) status. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the importance of Gleason 7 status as an independent predictor of progression. In addition, an ANN was developed using randomly selected training and validation sets for predicting biochemical recurrence at 3 or 5 years. Different input variable subsets, with or without Gleason 7 status, were compared for the ability of the ANN to maximize the prediction of progression. Standard logistic regression was used concurrently on the same random patient population sets to calculate progression risk. Results. A significant recurrence-free survival advantage was found in men who underwent RRP for GS3+4 compared with those with GS4+3 disease (P < 0.0001). The ANN, logistic regression, and proportion hazard models demonstrated the importance of Gleason 7 status in predicting patient outcome. The ANN was better than logistic regression in predicting patient outcome, in terms of prostate-specific antigen progression, at 3 and 5 years. Conclusions, A simple modification of the Gleason scoring system for men with Gleason 7 disease revealed a difference in the patient outcome after RRP. ANN models can be developed and used to better predict patient outcome when pathologic and clinical features are known. UROLOGY 56: 994-999, 2000. (C) 2000, Elsevier Science Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:994 / 999
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Multiparametric 3T MRI for the prediction of pathological downgrading after radical prostatectomy in patients with biopsy-proven Gleason score 3+4 prostate cancer
    Gondo, Tatsuo
    Hricak, Hedvig
    Sala, Evis
    Zheng, Junting
    Moskowitz, Chaya S.
    Bernstein, Melanie
    Eastham, James A.
    Vargas, Hebert Alberto
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2014, 24 (12) : 3161 - 3170
  • [32] Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality and Gleason 7 Disease Differences in Prostate Cancer Outcomes Between Cases With Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 3+4 Tumors in a Population Based Cohort
    Wright, Jonathan L.
    Salinas, Claudia A.
    Lin, Daniel W.
    Kolb, Suzanne
    Koopmeiners, Joseph
    Feng, Ziding
    Stanford, Janet L.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (06): : 2702 - 2707
  • [33] Gleason Score 3+4=7 Prostate Cancer With Minimal Quantity of Gleason Pattern 4 on Needle Biopsy Is Associated With Low-risk Tumor in Radical Prostatectomy Specimen
    Huang, Cheng Cheng
    Kong, Max Xiangtian
    Zhou, Ming
    Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
    Taneja, Samir S.
    Melamed, Jonathan
    Deng, Fang-Ming
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGICAL PATHOLOGY, 2014, 38 (08) : 1096 - 1101
  • [34] SELECTING IDEAL INTERMEDIATE RISK PATIENTS FOR ACTIVE SURVEILLANCE; A LOOK AT ADVERSE PATHOLOGY AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY FOR GLEASON SCORE 3+4 ON TARGETED BIOPSY
    Bloom, Jonathan B.
    Lebastachi, Amir H.
    Ahdoot, Michael
    Gurram, Sandeep
    Gold, Sam A.
    Hale, Graham R.
    Mehralivand, Sherif
    Sanford, Thomas
    Valera, Vladimir
    Wood, Bradford
    Merino, Maria J.
    Choyke, Peter L.
    Parnes, Howard L.
    Turkbey, Baris
    Pinto, Peter A.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2019, 201 (04): : E827 - E827
  • [35] Gleason score vs Gleason predominant grade 4/5 as predictors of progression following radical prostatectomy
    Guimaraes, MS
    Billis, A
    Magna, LA
    Quintal, MM
    Ruano, T
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2005, 18 : 143A - 143A
  • [36] Gleason score vs Gleason predominant grade 4/5 as predictors of progression following radical prostatectomy
    Guimaraes, MS
    Billis, A
    Magna, LA
    Quintal, MM
    Ruano, T
    Ferreira, U
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2005, 85 : 143A - 143A
  • [37] Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality and Gleason 7 Disease Differences in Prostate Cancer Outcomes Between Cases With Gleason 4+3 and Gleason 3+4 Tumors in a Population Based Cohort COMMENT
    Dahm, Philipp
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 182 (06): : 2707 - 2707
  • [38] Feasibility for active surveillance in biopsy Gleason 3+4 prostate cancer: an Australian radical prostatectomy cohort
    Wong, Lih-Ming
    Tang, Vincent
    Peters, Justin
    Costello, Anthony
    Corcoran, Niall
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 117 : 82 - 87
  • [39] PTEN Loss in Gleason Score 3+4=7 Prostate Biopsies Is Associated with Non-Organ Confined Disease at Radical Prostatectomy
    Guedes, Liana Benevides
    Tosoian, Jeff
    Hicks, Jessica
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Lotan, Tamara L.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2017, 30 : 214A - 214A
  • [40] PTEN Loss in Gleason Score 3+4=7 Prostate Biopsies Is Associated with Non-Organ Confined Disease at Radical Prostatectomy
    Guedes, Liana Benevides
    Tosoian, Jeff
    Hicks, Jessica
    Ross, Ashley E.
    Lotan, Tamara L.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2017, 97 : 214A - 214A