Predicting Prostate Cancer Upgrading of Biopsy Gleason Grade Group at Radical Prostatectomy Using Machine Learning-Assisted Decision-Support Models

References

• Gleason DF, Mellinger GT. Prediction of prognosis for prostatic adenocarcinoma by combined histological grading and clinical staging. J Urol. 1974;111(1):58–64. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59889-44813554
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Allsbrook WC, Amin MB, Egevad LL; ISUP Grading Committee. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(2):244–252. doi:10.1097/PAS.000000000000053026492179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alchin DR, Murphy D, Lawrentschuk N. Risk factors for Gleason score upgrading following radical prostatectomy. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017;69(5):459–465. doi:10.23736/S0393-2249.16.02684-928008754
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müntener M, Epstein JI, Hernandez DJ, et al. Prognostic significance of Gleason score discrepancies between needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008;53(4):767–775. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.11.01618060681
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, et al. 10-year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1415–1424. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa160622027626136
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi F, Zhu K, Cheng Y, et al. How to pick out the “Unreal” Gleason 3 + 3 patients: a nomogram for more precise active surveillance protocol in low-risk prostate cancer in a Chinese population. J Invest Surg. 2019;6:1–8. doi:10.1080/08941939.2019.1669745
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Athanazio D, Gotto G, Shea-Budgell M, et al. Global Gleason grade groups in prostate cancer: concordance of biopsy and radical prostatectomy grades and predictors of upgrade and downgrade. Histopathology. 2017;70(7):1098–1106. doi:10.1111/his.1317928370140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong NC, Lam C, Patterson L, et al. Use of machine learning to predict early biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2018;123(1):51–57. doi:10.1111/bju.1447729969172
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen JH, Asch SM. Machine learning and prediction in medicine - beyond the peak of inflated expectations. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:2507–2509. doi:10.1056/NEJMra181425928657867
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rajkomar A, Dean J, Kohane I. Machine learning in medicine. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1347–1358. doi:10.1056/NEJMra181425930943338
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trpkov K, Sangkhamanon S, Yilmaz A, et al. Concordance of “case level” global, highest, and largest volume cancer grade group on needle biopsy versus grade group on radical prostatectomy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2018;42(11):1522–1529. doi:10.1097/PAS.000000000000113730080706
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Barentsz JO, Choyke PL, et al. PI-RADS prostate imaging - reporting and data system:2015, version 2. Eur Urol. 2016;69(1):16–40. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.05226427566
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Zelefsky MJ, Sjoberg DD, et al. A contemporary prostate cancer grading system: a validated alternative to the Gleason score. Eur Urol. 2016;69(3):428–435. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2015.06.04626166626
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44(3):837–845. doi:10.2307/25315953203132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alshak MN, Patel N, Gross MD, et al. Persistent discordance in grade, stage, and NCCN risk stratification in men undergoing targeted biopsy and radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2020;135:117–123. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.04931568795
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corcoran NM, Hovens CM, Hong MK, et al. Underestimation of Gleason score at prostate biopsy reflects sampling error in lower volume tumours. BJU Int. 2012;109(5):660–664. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10543.x21895937
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuroiwa K, Shiraishi T, Naito S. Gleason score correlation between biopsy and prostatectomy specimens and prediction of high-grade Gleason patterns: significance of central pathologic review. Urology. 2011;77(2):407–411. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2010.05.03020728923
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein JI, Feng Z, Trock BJ, et al. Upgrading and downgrading of prostate cancer from biopsy to radical prostatectomy: incidence and predictive factors using the modified Gleason grading system and factoring in tertiary grades. Eur Urol. 2012;61(5):1019–1024. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2012.01.05022336380
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chun FK, Steuber T, Erbersdobler A, et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram predicting the probability of prostate cancer Gleason sum upgrading between biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology. Eur Urol. 2006;49(5):820–826. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2005.11.00716439050
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas C, Pfirrmann K, Pieles F, et al. Predictors for clinically relevant Gleason score upgrade in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012;109(2):214–219. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10187.x21592293
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Qiu J, Xie E, et al. Predicting in-hospital rupture of type A aortic dissection using random forest. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(11):4634–4646. doi:10.21037/jtd.2019.10.8231903252
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu J, Zan X, Gao L, et al. A machine learning method for identifying lung cancer based on routine blood indices: qualitative feasibility study. JMIR Med Inform. 2019;7(3):e13476. doi:10.2196/1347631418423
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altok M, Troncoso P, Achim MF, et al. Prostate cancer upgrading or downgrading of biopsy Gleason scores at radical prostatectomy: prediction of “regression to the mean” using routine clinical features with correlating biochemical relapse rates. Asian J Androl. 2019;21(6):598–604. doi:10.4103/aja.aja_29_1931115364
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang DD, Mahal BA, Muralidhar V, et al. Pathologic outcomes of Gleason 6 favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer treated with radical prostatectomy: implications for active surveillance. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2018;16(3):226–234. doi:10.1016/j.clgc.2017.10.01329196209
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morlacco A, Cheville JC, Rangel LJ, et al. Adverse disease features in Gleason score 3 + 4 “favorable intermediate-risk” prostate cancer: implications for active surveillance. Eur Urol. 2017;72(3):442–447. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2016.08.04327574819
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. The key combined value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, and magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and concomitant systematic biopsies for the prediction of adverse pathological features in prostate cancer patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2020;77(6):733–741. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2019.09.00531547938
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepe P, Garufi A, Priolo GD, et al. Is it time to perform only magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores? Our experience with 1032 men who underwent prostate biopsy. J Urol. 2018;200(4):774–778. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.06129679618
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pepe P, Fraggetta F, Galia A, et al. Is quantitative histologic examination useful to predict nonorgan-confined prostate cancer when saturation biopsy is performed? Urology. 2008;72(6):1198–1202. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.05.04519041023
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gandaglia G, Ploussard G, Valerio M, et al. A novel nomogram to identify candidates for extended pelvic lymph node dissection among patients with clinically localized prostate cancer diagnosed with magnetic resonance imaging-targeted and systematic biopsies. Eur Urol. 2019;75(3):506–514. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.10.01230342844
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Bruzzese D, et al. Low serum total testosterone level as a predictor of upstaging and upgrading in low-risk prostate cancer patients meeting the inclusion criteria for active surveillance. Oncotarget. 2017;8(11):18424–18434. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.1290627793023
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Cobelli O, et al. Circulating preoperative testosterone level predicts unfavorable disease at radical prostatectomy in men with International Society of Urological Pathology Grade Group 1 prostate cancer diagnosed with systematic biopsies. World J Urol. 2020. doi:10.1007/s00345-020-03368-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferro M, Lucarelli G, Bruzzese D, et al. Improving the prediction of pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: the value of prostate cancer antigen 3 (PCA3), prostate health index (phi) and sarcosine. Anticancer Res. 2015;35(2):1017–1023.25667489
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He B, Chen R, Gao X, et al. Nomograms for predicting Gleason upgrading in a contemporary Chinese cohort receiving radical prostatectomy after extended prostate biopsy: development and internal validation. Oncotarget. 2016;7(13):17275–17285. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.778726943768
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moussa AS, Kattan MW, Berglund R, et al. A nomogram for predicting upgrading in patients with low- and intermediate-grade prostate cancer in the era of extended prostate sampling. BJU Int. 2010;105(3):352–358. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.08778.x19681898
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kulkarni GS, Lockwood G, Evans A, et al. Clinical predictors of Gleason score upgrading: implications for patients considering watchful waiting, active surveillance, or brachytherapy. Cancer. 2007;109(12):2432–2438. doi:10.1002/cncr.2271217497649
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar