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
  • [41] Comparison of oncological outcomes for radical prostatectomy in Gleason score 3+5 or 5+3 versus 4+4 prostate cancer
    Kim, Hwanik
    Lee, Jaewon
    Kim, Jung Kwon
    Lee, Hakmin
    Lee, Sangchul
    Byun, Seok-Soo
    Hong, Sung Kyu
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2020, 27 : 140 - 140
  • [42] Percentage of Gleason pattern 4 and 5 predicts survival after radical prostatectomy
    Cheng, Liang
    Davidson, Darrell D.
    Lin, Haiqun
    Koch, Michael O.
    CANCER, 2007, 110 (09) : 1967 - 1972
  • [43] Gleason Score 7 Prostate Cancer on Needle Biopsy: Relation of Primary Pattern 3 or 4 to Pathological Stage and Progression After Radical Prostatectomy
    Amin, Ali
    Partin, Alan
    Epstein, Jonathan I.
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 186 (04): : 1286 - 1290
  • [44] The identification, internal and external validation of a biomarker panel to distinguish between Gleason 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancer
    Oon, S. F.
    Fan, Y.
    Fitzpatrick, J. M.
    Klocker, H.
    Watson, R. W. G.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2011, 98 : 48 - 48
  • [45] 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
    Schiavina, R.
    Borghesi, M.
    Brunocilla, E.
    Romagnoli, D.
    Diazzi, D.
    Giunchi, F.
    Vagnoni, V.
    Pultrone, C. V.
    Dababneh, H.
    Porreca, A.
    Fiorentino, M.
    Martorana, G.
    PROSTATE CANCER AND PROSTATIC DISEASES, 2015, 18 (03) : 270 - 275
  • [46] 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
    R Schiavina
    M Borghesi
    E Brunocilla
    D Romagnoli
    D Diazzi
    F Giunchi
    V Vagnoni
    C V Pultrone
    H Dababneh
    A Porreca
    M Fiorentino
    G Martorana
    Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases, 2015, 18 : 270 - 275
  • [47] Biomarkers Differentially Expressed in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Gleason Score 3+4=7 vs Gleason Score 4+3=7 Identified by Global Transcriptome Sequencing of Formalin-Fixed Paraffin Embedded Tissue
    Moreno, C. S.
    Long, Q.
    Xu, J.
    Sannigrahi, S.
    Johnson, B. A.
    Zhou, W.
    Gillespie, T.
    Park, J. Y.
    Nam, R. K.
    Sugar, L.
    Stanimirovic, A.
    Seth, A. K.
    Petros, J. A.
    Osunkoya, A. O.
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2014, 27 : 250A - 250A
  • [48] Biomarkers Differentially Expressed in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Gleason Score 3+4=7 vs Gleason Score 4+3=7 Identified by Global Transcriptome Sequencing of Forman-Fixed Paraffin Embedded Tissue
    Moreno, C. S.
    Long, Q.
    Xu, J.
    Sannigrahi, S.
    Johnson, B. A.
    Zhou, W.
    Gillespie, T.
    Park, J. Y.
    Nam, R. K.
    Sugar, L.
    Stanimirovic, A.
    Seth, A. K.
    Petros, J. A.
    Osunkoya, A. O.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2014, 94 : 250A - 250A
  • [49] Predictive role of T2WI and ADC-derived texture parameters in differentiating Gleason score 3+4 and 4+3 prostate cancer
    Kang, Zhen
    Xu, Anhui
    Wang, Liang
    JOURNAL OF X-RAY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 2021, 29 (02) : 307 - 315
  • [50] CAN SMALL LESIONS OF GLEASON 3+4 BE LEFT UNTREATED IN FOCAL THERAPY? ANALYSIS OF RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY SPECIMENS
    Kanao, Kent
    Kajikawa, Keishi
    Kobayashi, Ikuo
    Muramatsu, Hiroyuki
    Morinaga, Shingo
    Nishikawa, Genya
    Yoshizawa, Takahiko
    Kato, Yoshiharu
    Watanabe, Masahito
    Nakamura, Kogenta
    Sumitomo, Makoto
    JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2016, 195 (04): : E198 - E198