The validation of threshold decision ruls and calculator for APhiG algoritm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment

Background. We have previously described an algorithm APhiG (Age of patients, Prostate health index and Gleason score), for staging of prostate cancer before treatment. The algorithm was developed by logistic regression on a training dataset and validated on a validation dataset (VD). Objective. Validation of threshold decision rules and a program for APhiG calculation on the VD.

Materials and methods. ROC curve analysis on VD (83 cases).

Results and conclusion. It was shown that sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, diagnostic accuracy threshold decision rules and area under the curve (AUC) for APhiG in the VD (n = 83) not significantly different from those indicators in the training dataset (n = 337), which was the basis for the algorithm APhiG development.

1. Volchenko N.N., Kaprin A.D., Belyakov M.M., Petrov A.N. Comparative analysis of the degree of differentiation of prostate cancer on biopsy and surgical materials. Oncology. Journal them. P.A. Herzen 2016; 1 (5): 18-22. (In Russ.)

2. Tsui K., Shen B., Sun G. et al. Probability based diagnostic biopsy specimens as predictors of tumor grade and stage found. . Syst Bio Reprod Med 2004; 50(5): 333-337.

3. Lukyanov I.V. The difficulties of staging prostate cancer. Cancer Urology. 2013; 9(1):10-16. (In Russ.).

4. Tosoian J.J., Mamawala M., Epstein J.I. et al. Intermediate and Longer-Term Outcomes From a Prospective Active-Surveillance Program for Favorable-Risk Prostate Cancer J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(30): 3379-85.

5. Guazzoni G., Lazzeri M., Nava L. et al. Preoperative prostate-specific antigen isoform p2PSA and its derivatives, %p2PSA and prostate health index, predict pathologic outcomes in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(3): 455-66.

6. Lorent M., Maalmi H., Tessier Ph. et al. Meta-analysis of predictive models to assess the clinical validity and utility for patient-centered medical decision making: application to the CAncer of the Prostate Risk Assessment (CAPRA). BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2019; 19(2): 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0727-2

7. Sergeeva N.S., Skachkova T.E., Alekseev B.Ya. et al. VIZG is a new multiparameter indicator for prostate cancer. Cancer Urology. 2016; 12 (4): 89-95. DOI: 10.17650 /1726–9776–2016–12–4–94–103. (In Russ.).

8. Alekseev B., Skachkova T., Sergeeva N. et al. MP53-09 New algorithm APHIGT for prostate cancer staging. AUA2018. The Journal of Urology. 2018; 199 (4S, Suppl.): e707. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.02.1680

9. Sergeeva N.S., Gitis V.G., Yurkov E.F. et al. A method for predicting the stage and aggressiveness of prostate cancer before surgery on laboratory and clinical parameters. Patent for invention. RU 2614501 C1. IPC G01N 33/48 of 03/28/2017. (In Russ.).

10. Skachkova T.E., Sergeeva N.S., Alekseev B.Ya., Kaprin A.D. Calculator for calculating multiparameter indicators for pre-operative staging of prostate cancer. The certificate on the computer program. № 2017616515 dated 06.06.2017. (In Russ.).

11. Sergeeva N.S., Skachkova T.E., Marshutina N.V. et al. The validation results for APhiGT algorithm for clarification of prostate cancer staging before treatment (first step). Cancer Urology. 2019; 15 (2):72-82. DOI: 10.17650/1726-9776-2019-15-2-42-52. (In Russ.).

12. TNM. Classification of malignant tumors. Ed. L.Kh. Sobin, M.K. Lord, K. Wittekind. per. from English Moscow: Logosphere; 2011; 304s. (In Russ.).