A comparison of machine learning models for predicting urinary incontinence in men with localized prostate cancer.

Introduction: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common side effect of prostate cancer treatment, but in clinical practice, it is difficult to predict. Machine learning (ML) models have shown promising results in predicting outcomes, yet the lack of transparency in complex models known as "black-box" has made clinicians wary of relying on them in sensitive decisions. Therefore, finding a balance between accuracy and explainability is crucial for the implementation of ML models. The aim of this study was to employ three different ML classifiers to predict the probability of experiencing UI in men with localized prostate cancer 1-year and 2-year after treatment and compare their accuracy and explainability. Methods: We used the ProZIB dataset from the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) which contained clinical, demographic, and PROM data of 964 patients from 65 Dutch hospitals. Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorithms were applied to predict (in)continence after prostate cancer treatment. Results: All models have been externally validated according to the TRIPOD Type 3 guidelines and their performance was assessed by accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC. While all three models demonstrated similar performance, LR showed slightly better accuracy than RF and SVM in predicting the risk of UI one year after prostate cancer treatment, achieving an accuracy of 0.75, a sensitivity of 0.82, and an AUC of 0.79. All models for the 2-year outcome performed poorly in the validation set, with an accuracy of 0.6 for LR, 0.65 for RF, and 0.54 for SVM. Conclusion: The outcomes of our study demonstrate the promise of using non-black box models, such as LR, to assist clinicians in recognizing high-risk patients and making informed treatment choices. The coefficients of the LR model show the importance of each feature in predicting results, and the generated nomogram provides an accessible illustration of how each feature impacts the predicted outcome. Additionally, the model's simplicity and interpretability make it a more appropriate option in scenarios where comprehending the model's predictions is essential.

Development and external validation of multivariate prediction models for erectile dysfunction in men with localized prostate cancer.

While the 10-year survival rate for localized prostate cancer patients is very good (>98%), side effects of treatment may limit quality of life significantly. Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common burden associated with increasing age as well as prostate cancer treatment. Although many studies have investigated the factors affecting erectile dysfunction (ED) after prostate cancer treatment, only limited studies have investigated whether ED can be predicted before the start of treatment. The advent of machine learning (ML) based prediction tools in oncology offers a promising approach to improve the accuracy of prediction and quality of care. Predicting ED may help aid shared decision-making by making the advantages and disadvantages of certain treatments clear, so that a tailored treatment for an individual patient can be chosen. This study aimed to predict ED at 1-year and 2-year post-diagnosis based on patient demographics, clinical data and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) measured at diagnosis. We used a subset of the ProZIB dataset collected by the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organization (Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland; IKNL) that contained information on 964 localized prostate cancer cases from 69 Dutch hospitals for model training and external validation. Two models were generated using a logistic regression algorithm coupled with Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE). The first predicted ED 1 year post-diagnosis and required 10 pre-treatment variables; the second predicted ED 2 years post-diagnosis with 9 pre-treatment variables. The validation AUCs were 0.84 and 0.81 for 1 year and 2 years post-diagnosis respectively. To immediately allow patients and clinicians to use these models in the clinical decision-making process, nomograms were generated. In conclusion, we successfully developed and validated two models that predicted ED in patients with localized prostate cancer. These models will allow physicians and patients alike to make informed evidence-based decisions about the most suitable treatment with quality of life in mind.

Taking shared decision making for prostate cancer to the next level: Requirements for a Dutch treatment decision aid with personalized risks on side effects.

Background: Different curative treatment modalities need to be considered in case of localized prostate cancer, all comparable in terms of survival and recurrence though different in side effects. To better inform patients and support shared decision making, the development of a web-based patient decision aid including personalized risk information was proposed. This paper reports on requirements in terms of content of information, visualization of risk profiles, and use in practice. Methods: Based on a Dutch 10-step guide about the setup of a decision aid next to a practice guideline, an iterative and co-creative design process was followed. In collaboration with various groups of experts (health professionals, usability and linguistic experts, patients and the general public), research and development activities were continuously alternated. Results: Content requirements focused on presenting information only about conventional treatments and main side effects; based on risk group; and including clear explanations about personalized risks. Visual requirements involved presenting general and personalized risks separately; through bar charts or icon arrays; and along with numbers or words, and legends. Organizational requirements included integration into local clinical pathways; agreement about information input and output; and focus on patients' numeracy and graph literacy skills. Conclusions: The iterative and co-creative development process was challenging, though extremely valuable. The translation of requirements resulted in a decision aid about four conventional treatment options, including general or personalized risks for erection, urinary and intestinal problems that are communicated with icon arrays and numbers. Future implementation and validation studies need to inform about use and value in practice.

The necessity of external validation in exhaled breath research: a case study of sarcoidosis.

As in other disciplines of 'omics' research, reproducibility is a major problem in exhaled breath research. Many studies report discriminatory volatiles in the same disease, yet the similarity between lists of identified compounds is low. This can occur due to many factors including the lack of internal and, in particular, external validation. In an ideal situation, an external validation-sampled at, for example, a different location-is always included to ensure generalization of the observed findings to a general population. In this study, we hypothesized that sarcoidosis patients and healthy controls could be discriminated based on a group of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath and that these discriminating VOCs could be validated in an external population. The first dataset consisted of 87 sarcoidosis patients and 27 healthy controls, whereas the validation dataset consisted of 25 patients and 29 controls. Using the first dataset, nine VOCs were found that could predict sarcoidosis with 79.4% accuracy. Different types of internal and external validation were tested to assess the validity of the nine VOCs. Of the internal validations, randomly setting aside part of the data achieved the most accurate predictions while external validation was only possible by building a new prediction model that yielded a promising yet not entirely convincing accuracy of 74% due to the indirect approach. In conclusion, the initial results of this study are very promising but, as the results of our validation set already indicated, may not be reproducible in other studies. In order to achieve a reliable diagnostic breath fingerprint for sarcoidosis, we encourage other scientists to validate the presented findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00741572 & NCT02361281.