The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)

Background. We have previously described an algorithm APhiGT (Age, Prostate Health index, Gleason score, TNM stage) for staging of prostate cancer (PC) before treatment. The algorithm was developed by logistic regression on an educational selection (ES) of 337 PC cases. The algorithm includes data a...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: N. S. Sergeeva, T. E. Skachkova, N. V. Marshutina, K. M. Nushko, I. M. Shevchuk, M. R. Nazirov, S. A. Pirogov, E. F. Yurkov, V. G. Gitis, B. Ya. Alekseev, A. D. Kaprin
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: ABV-press 2019-07-01
Series:Onkourologiâ
Subjects:
Online Access:https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/article/view/948
id doaj-a804d2b708fe4755934d63caf8d7841c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a804d2b708fe4755934d63caf8d7841c2021-07-29T08:41:44ZrusABV-pressOnkourologiâ 1726-97761996-18122019-07-01152425210.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-2-42-52844The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)N. S. Sergeeva0T. E. Skachkova1N. V. Marshutina2K. M. Nushko3I. M. Shevchuk4M. R. Nazirov5S. A. Pirogov6E. F. Yurkov7V. G. Gitis8B. Ya. Alekseev9A. D. Kaprin10P.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of Russia; N.I. Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University, Ministry of Health of RussiaP.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaP.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaP.A. Hertzen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaN.A. Lopatkin Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaN.A. Lopatkin Research Institute of Urology and Interventional Radiology – branch of the National Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaInstitute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich Institute), Russian Academy of SciencesInstitute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich Institute), Russian Academy of SciencesInstitute for Information Transmission Problems (Kharkevich Institute), Russian Academy of SciencesNational Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaNational Medical Research Radiological Center, Ministry of Health of RussiaBackground. We have previously described an algorithm APhiGT (Age, Prostate Health index, Gleason score, TNM stage) for staging of prostate cancer (PC) before treatment. The algorithm was developed by logistic regression on an educational selection (ES) of 337 PC cases. The algorithm includes data about the age of patients, the levels of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, [-2]proPSA and the ranked data of the Gleason score (by biopsy results) and T (by TNM).Objective. Validation of APhiGT on the validation selection (VS) of 83 PC cases was carried out in this work.Materials and methods. ROC analysis was performed in ES and VS.Results and сonclusion. It is established that area under the curve (AUC), characterizing the ability to divide clinically significant subgroups of patients (Gleason score <7 vs. Gleason score ≥7, рТ2 vs. рТ3, localized indolent PC vs. localized aggressive PC) for APhiGT both in ES and VS was significantly higher than AUC for total PSA, %[-2]proPSA in free PSA and prostate health index. At the same time, in all clinical subgroups of patients AUC for VS was lower than AUC for ES, which may be due to a significantly smaller size of VS compared to ES.https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/article/view/948prostate cancerstaging before treatmentaphigt algorithmvalidation
collection DOAJ
language Russian
format Article
sources DOAJ
author N. S. Sergeeva
T. E. Skachkova
N. V. Marshutina
K. M. Nushko
I. M. Shevchuk
M. R. Nazirov
S. A. Pirogov
E. F. Yurkov
V. G. Gitis
B. Ya. Alekseev
A. D. Kaprin
spellingShingle N. S. Sergeeva
T. E. Skachkova
N. V. Marshutina
K. M. Nushko
I. M. Shevchuk
M. R. Nazirov
S. A. Pirogov
E. F. Yurkov
V. G. Gitis
B. Ya. Alekseev
A. D. Kaprin
The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
Onkourologiâ
prostate cancer
staging before treatment
aphigt algorithm
validation
author_facet N. S. Sergeeva
T. E. Skachkova
N. V. Marshutina
K. M. Nushko
I. M. Shevchuk
M. R. Nazirov
S. A. Pirogov
E. F. Yurkov
V. G. Gitis
B. Ya. Alekseev
A. D. Kaprin
author_sort N. S. Sergeeva
title The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
title_short The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
title_full The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
title_fullStr The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
title_full_unstemmed The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
title_sort validation results for aphigt algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step)
publisher ABV-press
series Onkourologiâ
issn 1726-9776
1996-1812
publishDate 2019-07-01
description Background. We have previously described an algorithm APhiGT (Age, Prostate Health index, Gleason score, TNM stage) for staging of prostate cancer (PC) before treatment. The algorithm was developed by logistic regression on an educational selection (ES) of 337 PC cases. The algorithm includes data about the age of patients, the levels of total prostate-specific antigen (PSA), free PSA, [-2]proPSA and the ranked data of the Gleason score (by biopsy results) and T (by TNM).Objective. Validation of APhiGT on the validation selection (VS) of 83 PC cases was carried out in this work.Materials and methods. ROC analysis was performed in ES and VS.Results and сonclusion. It is established that area under the curve (AUC), characterizing the ability to divide clinically significant subgroups of patients (Gleason score <7 vs. Gleason score ≥7, рТ2 vs. рТ3, localized indolent PC vs. localized aggressive PC) for APhiGT both in ES and VS was significantly higher than AUC for total PSA, %[-2]proPSA in free PSA and prostate health index. At the same time, in all clinical subgroups of patients AUC for VS was lower than AUC for ES, which may be due to a significantly smaller size of VS compared to ES.
topic prostate cancer
staging before treatment
aphigt algorithm
validation
url https://oncourology.abvpress.ru/oncur/article/view/948
work_keys_str_mv AT nssergeeva thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT teskachkova thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT nvmarshutina thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT kmnushko thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT imshevchuk thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT mrnazirov thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT sapirogov thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT efyurkov thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT vggitis thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT byaalekseev thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT adkaprin thevalidationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT nssergeeva validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT teskachkova validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT nvmarshutina validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT kmnushko validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT imshevchuk validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT mrnazirov validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT sapirogov validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT efyurkov validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT vggitis validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT byaalekseev validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
AT adkaprin validationresultsforaphigtalgorithmforclarificationofprostatecancerstagingbeforetreatmentfirststep
_version_ 1721252503505338368