Table 5 Treatment outcome prediction
Art | Mdl | Dom | Subdomain | Variables | Output | System training | Validation methods | Statistical outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[79] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP | Age, stage, bone scan, grade, PSA, treatment, bcl-2, p54 | No response, response then relapse, response and no relapse | cohort of CaP single centre 21 patients | ROC, Sp, Se 20 patients randomly selected | Ac 85% (60% without markers), K, 0.65; Cl, P < 0.00001 |
[80] | ANN | CaP | BCF post RRP | Age Pathologic findings and GENN1 | Disease progression | Gl 5–7, T1B-2C, Single centre 136 | ROC, Sp, Se Test set of 35 (20%) | AUC 0.71, Ac 74%, Se 82%, Sp 61%, |
[80] | ANN | CaP | BCF post RRP | DNA polyploidy and quantitative nuclear grade | Disease progression | Gl 5–7, T1B-2C, Single centre 136 | ROC, Sp, Se | AUC 0.74, Ac 80%, Se 75%, Sp 85% |
[80] | ANN | CaP | BCF post RRP | Pathologic findings, age, DNA polyploidy and quantitative nuclear grade | Disease progression | Gl 5–7, T1B-2C, Single centre 136 | Test set of 35 (20%) | AUC 0.73, Ac 78%, Se 84%, Sp 72% |
[81] | ANN | CaP | BCF post RRP | Age, PSA, Gl and stage | BCF post RRP all | 140 cases post RRP, one centre | ROC, Sp, Se 35 (20%) for validity | AUC 0.81, Se 74%, Sp 78%, PPV 71%, NPV 81%, |
[82] | Fkn | CaP | Outcome of RRP | TM, Gl, PSA, P53, bcl-2, treatment method | No response No progression after treatment, Relapse | 41 men with CaP | LOO and compare predictive accuracy of ANN, Fkn | Predictive accuracy ranged from 61–88% |
[68] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP | tPSA, TZV, PSAd, Gl | Local or advanced disease | 200 cases from multinational European cancer data base | AUC ROC 60 prospective set | AUC 0.91, Se 95%, Sp 64%, |
[83] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | tPSA, clinical stage, Gl (ANNA1) | Positive surgical margins | 218 post RRP and pelvic lymph adenectomy in one centre | ROC AUC 48 cases 1/4 CV | AUC 0.7 |
[83] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | tPSA, clinical stage, Gl, pMRI findings (ANNA2) | Positive surgical margins | 218 post RRRP and pelvic lymph adenectomy in one centre | ROC AUC 48 cases 1/4 CV | AUC 0.87 |
[83] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | tPSA, clinical stage, Gl, pMRI findings, % of cancer in biopsy, PSAd ANNA3 | Positive surgical margins | 218 post RRP and pelvic lymph adenopathy in one centre | ROC AUC 48 cases 1/4 CV | AUC 0.87 |
[83] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | tPSA, clinical stage, Gl, % of cancer in biopsy ANNA4 | Positive surgical margins | 218 post RRP and pelvic lymph adenopathy in one centre | ROC AUC 48 cases 1/4 CV | AUC 0.71 |
[84] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin and LN | tPSA, clinical TNM Gl ANNA1 | Positive surgical margins, LN involvement | 41 post RRP and pelvic lymph adenopathy in one centre | ROC AUC 160 cases randomly selected | AUC 0.86 for positive margin, 0.88 for LN + ve |
[84] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin and LN | tPSA, clinical TNM Gl, pMRI findings ANNA2 | Positive surgical margins, LN involvement | 41 post RRP and pelvic lymph adenopathy in one centre | ROC AUC 160 cases randomly selected | AUC 0.9 for positive margin, 0.89 for LN + ve |
[84] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin and LN | tPSA, clinical stage, Gl, pMRI findings, age ANNA3 | Positive surgical margins, LN involvement | 41 post RRP and pelvic lymph adenopathy in one centre | ROC AUC 160 cases randomly selected | AUC 0.9 for positive margin, 0.9 for LN + ve |
[85] | FRB | CaP | Outcome of RRP | Clinical stage, Gl, tPSA | Cancer stage (confined, capsule, vesicle and LN) | 116 rules developed from nomograms | ROC Se, Sp 190 patients post RRP in one centre | AUC 0.76 (95% CI 0.7–0.8), Se 85%, Sp 61%) |
[86] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | TNM stage, age, Gl, tPSA | Capsule penetration | 650 retrospective data for RRP at one centre | PPV, NPV 98 cases for testing and 1/2 CV | PPV 100%, NPV 95% |
[86] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | TNM stage, age, Gl, tPSA MLP | Capsule penetration | 650 retrospective data for RRP at one centre | PPV, NPV 98 cases for testing and 1/2 CV | PPV 97%, NPV 95% |
[86] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | TNM stage, age, Gl, tPSA, Partial RNN (recurrent neural network) | Capsule penetration | 650 retrospective data for RRP at one centre | PPV, NPV 98 cases for testing and 1/2 CV | PPV 97%, NPV 95% |
[86] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRP, margin positive | TNM stage, age, Gl, tPSA, RBF-MLP | Capsule penetration | 650 retrospective data for RRP at one centre | PPV, NPV 98 cases for testing and 1/2 CV | PPV 97%, NPV 94% |
[87] | FRB | CaP | Outcome of RPP | Clinical stage, Gl, tPSA | Capsule penetration | Genetic algorithm on 331 patients post RRP in one centre | 48 patients post RRP in one centre ROC | AUC 0.82 (95% CI 0.5–0.8) |
[88] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of LAP RRP, BCF | Clinical and pathologic parameters, tPSA, margin status, TNM and Gl | BCF | 1575 patients at one centre post lap RRPP | ROC AUC LOO | AUC 0.75, Se 90%, Sp 35 |
[32] | FNM | CaP | Outcome post RRP | Age, FH, DRE, tPSA, Gl, MR findings | tPSA at 6 months | 19 one centre post RRP | Correlation coefficient = 0.99 | 3 Cases |
[89] | ANN | CaP | Outcome post RRP | Age, tPSA, staging, perineural infiltration, Gl, months of FU | BCF | 1400 multicentre data | Se 85% Sp74%, PPV 77% | 400 data |
[90] | ANN | CaP | Outcome post RRP, organ confined | Gleason score, preoperative PSA and clinical stage, | Organ confined | 468 cases for training | NPV 83% | 47 cases 30% CV |
[91] | ANN | CaP | Outcome of RRPP | PSA, BMI, DRE, TRUS, Gl score or grade | Capsule penetration | 225 patients’ data post RRP from 3 centres | 74 patients randomly selected ROC | AUC 0.79 LR 0.74 (P = 0.016) Partin AUC 0.7 |
[78] | ANN | Nlt | Stone regrowth after ESWL | Anatomy, position, stone analysis, urine analysis, previous stone, medical treatment | Stone recurrence | single centre data base, 65 cases | ROC, Sp, Se33 cases | Se 91%, Sp 92%, AUC 0.96 |
[92] | ANN | Nlt | Stone clearance with conservative treatment | Age, gender, duration, creatinine, nausea, vomiting, fever | Clearance or intervention | multi centre, Ureteric stone 125 cases | 55 cases ROC, Sp, Se | AC 76% Predict 100% of stones passed |
[75] | ANN | Nlt | lower pole stone ESWL | Gender, BMI, radiology, stone size and composition, urine analysis, 24Â h urine, serum ca and creatinine | Clearance or intervention | 321 patients with lower pole stone | 211 random set ROC, Sp, Se, vs LR | AUC 0.97 Se 95%, Sp 92%, |
[76] | ANN | Nlt | Stone clearance with ESWL | Age, gender, body habitus, serum electrolytes, 24Â h urine, radiological findings | Stone free | 60 patients, one centre | Correlation co-efficient 22 cases | 0.75 |
[77] | ANN | Nlt | Stone clearance with ESWL | Age, gender, anatomy, location, side, number, length, width, new or recurrent, stent | Stone clearance | Ureteric stone ESWL, One centre 688 cases | 296 cases ROC, Sp, Se | Ac 78%, Se78%, Sp 75%, PPV 97% |
[93] | ANN | Nlt | Outcome of conservative stone disease treatment | Age, gender, BMI, fever, previous treatments and stones, duration of the symptoms, dimension and position of the stone | Spontaneous expulsion or intervention | 402 patients from one centre | 50 patient, 1/4 cross validation ROC Se, Sp | Se 95%, Sp 63% |
[93] | SVM | Nlt | Outcome of conservative stone disease treatment | Age, gender, BMI, fever, previous treatments and stones, duration of the symptoms, dimension and position of the stone | Spontaneous expulsion or intervention | 402 patients from one centre | 50 patient, 1/4 cross validation ROC Se, Sp | Se 85%, Sp 87% |
[94] | ANN | Nlt | ESWL outcome prediction | The patients’ characteristics, stone location, burden, shape dimension, pre-ESWL procedure and cost of admission | unexpected post-ESWL visits | 1026 patients received ESWL at one centre` | AUC 0.66 | 506 patients |
[95] | ANN | PUJ | Outcome of PUJ repair | Demographic, clinical and radiological findings | Sonographic outcome of pyeloplasty | Single centre unilateral paediatric pyeloplasty n = 100 | 16 cases (16%) ROC, Sp, Se | Ac 100%, Se 100%, Sp 100% |
[96] | ANN | PUJ | Outcome of PUJ conservative treatment | Age, gender, renal pelvis diameter, laterality, separated renal function on DMSA, urine culture and infections | Observation or surgery | 37 infants with PUJ obstruction | Prediction accuracy16 patients for validation | 75% prediction accuracy |
[97] | ANN | Neph | Post lap partial nephrectomy hospital stay | Age, co-morbidities, tumour size and extension | Hospital stay less than 2Â days | 334 one centre | 5 institutes 77, 19 prospective ROC | AUC 0.6, 0.5 |
[97] | ANN | Neph | Post lap nephrectomy hospital stay | Age, co-morbidities, tumour size and extension | Hospital stay less than 2Â days | 392 One centre | 5 institutes 127, 29 prospective ROC | AUC 0.7, 0.7 |
[98]Z | ANN | Bca | Pathological stage after surgery | Age, gender, tumour (size, number, grade, invasion, lymph vascular invasion, stage), lymph nodes | Prognosis and advanced stage | 183 patients, one centre post cystectomy | ROC and compare with LR 1/3 cross validation | MANN AUC 0.86, Se 88%, Sp 77%, PPV 93%, NPV 63%, Ac 85% |
[98] | ANN | Bca | Pathological stage after surgery | Age, gender, tumour (size, number, grade, invasion, lymph vascular invasion, stage), lymph nodes | Prognosis and advanced stage | 183 patients, one centre post cystectomy | ROC and compare with LR 1/3 cross validation | SANN AUC 0.85, Se 84%, Sp 71%, PPV 91%, NPV 67%, Ac 83% |
[99] | ANN | VUR | outcome of endo repair of VU reflux | Age, gender, implant type, implant volume, number of treatments, side, endo findings, type of cystography | Ultrasound finding | Single centre data base, paediatric VU reflux 174 data | 87 cases for validation ROC, Sp, Se | Se 71.4%, Sp 81.6%, PPV 58.8%, NPV 88.6% and success rate 78.9%, |