Machine Learning to Predict Prostate Artery Embolization Outcomes

Purpose This study leverages pre-procedural data and machine learning (ML) techniques to predict outcomes at one year following prostate artery embolization (PAE). Materials and Methods This retrospective analysis combines data from the UK-ROPE registry and patients that underwent PAE at our institu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 2024-09, Vol.47 (9), p.1248-1254
Hauptverfasser: Vigneswaran, G., Doshi, N., Maclean, D., Bryant, T., Harris, M., Hacking, N., Farrahi, K., Niranjan, M., Modi, S.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose This study leverages pre-procedural data and machine learning (ML) techniques to predict outcomes at one year following prostate artery embolization (PAE). Materials and Methods This retrospective analysis combines data from the UK-ROPE registry and patients that underwent PAE at our institution between 2012 and 2023. Traditional ML approaches, including linear regression, lasso regression, ridge regression, decision trees and random forests, were used with leave-one-out cross-validation to predict international prostate symptom score (IPSS) at baseline and change at 1 year. Predictors included age, prostate volume, Qmax (maximum urinary flow rate), post-void residual volume, Abrams-Griffiths number (urodynamics score) and baseline IPSS (for change at 1 year). We also independently confirmed our findings using a separate dataset. An interactive digital user interface was developed to facilitate real-time outcome prediction. Results Complete data were available in 128 patients (66.7 ± 6.9 years). All models predicting IPSS demonstrated reasonable performance, with mean absolute error ranging between 4.9–7.3 for baseline IPSS and 5.2–8.2 for change in IPSS. These numbers represent the differences between the patient-reported and model-predicted IPSS scores. Interestingly, the model error in predicting baseline IPSS (based on objective measures alone) significantly correlated with the change in IPSS at 1-year post-PAE ( R 2  = 0.2, p 
ISSN:0174-1551
1432-086X
1432-086X
DOI:10.1007/s00270-024-03776-z