The value of PROMs for predicting erectile dysfunction in prostate cancer patients with Bayesian network

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to develop and externally validate a clinically plausible Bayesian network structure to predict one-year erectile dysfunction in prostate cancer patients by combining expert knowledge with evidence from data using clinical and Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data. In addition, compare and contrast structures that stem from PROM information and routine clinical data.

Summary of background

For men with localized prostate cancer, choosing the optimal treatment can be challenging since each option comes with different side effects, such as erectile dysfunction, which negatively impacts their quality of life. Our previous findings demonstrate that logistic regression models are able to identify patients at high risk of erectile dysfunction. However, methods such as Bayesian networks may be more successful, as they intricately represent the causal relations between the variables.

Patients and methods

946 prostate cancer patients from 65 Dutch hospitals were considered to develop the Bayesian network structure. Continuous variables were discretized before analysis based on expert opinions and literature. Patients with missing information and variables with more than 25% of missing information were excluded. Prostate cancer treating physicians first determined the relationships (arcs) between the available variables. The structures were then modified based on algorithmically derived structures using the hill-climbing algorithm. Structural Performance was evaluated based on the area under the curve (AUC) values and calibration plots on the training and test data.

Results

BMI and prostate volume via MRI were excluded from this analysis due to their high percentage of missingness (>45 %). The final cohort was reduced to 505 and 216 after excluding 157 and 68 patients with missing information, respectively. The AUC of the PROM structure was better than the clinical structure in both the train and test data. The structure that combined both sources of information had an AUC value of 0.94 (0.92 – 0.96) and 0.84171 (0.77 91) in the train and test data, respectively.

Conclusion

Bayesian network structures derived from PROM information by complimenting expert knowledge with evidence from the data produce a clinically plausible structure that is more performant than structures from clinical data. Our study supports the growing global recognition of incorporating the patient’s perspective in outcomes research for better decision-making and optimal outcomes. However, a structure that combines both sources of information gives a more holistic view of the patient with actionable insights and improved discriminative power.