Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) ›› 2019, Vol. 51 ›› Issue (4): 653-659. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2019.04.010

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Application of machine learning models in predicting early stone-free rate after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for renal stones

Xue-hua ZHU1,Ming-yu YANG2,Hai-zhui XIA1,Wei HE1,Zhi-ying ZHANG1,Yu-qing LIU1,(),Chun-lei XIAO1,(),Lu-lin MA1,Jian LU1   

  1. 1. Department of Urology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
    2. School of Electronics Engineering and Computer Science, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
  • Received:2019-03-14 Online:2019-08-18 Published:2019-09-03
  • Contact: Yu-qing LIU,Chun-lei XIAO E-mail:pku3uro@aliyun.com;xiaochunleixcl@sina.com
  • Supported by:
    Supported by the Intelligent Medical Program of Peking University(BMU2018ZHYL012)

RICH HTML

  

Abstract:

Objective: To establish predictive models based on random forest and XGBoost machine learning algorithm and to investigate their value in predicting early stone-free rate (SFR) after flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (fURL) in patients with renal stones.Methods: The clinical data of 201 patients with renal stones who underwent fURL were retrospectively investigated. According to the stone-free standard, the patients were divided into stone-free group (SF group) and stone-residual group (SR group). We compared a number of factors including patient age, body mass index (BMI), stone number, stone volume, stone density and hydronephrosis between the two groups. For low calyceal calculi, renal anatomic parameters including infundibular angle (IPA), infundibular width (IW), infundibular length (IL) and pelvic calyceal height (PCH), would be measured. We brought above potential predictive factors into random forest and XGBoost machine learning algorithm respectively to develop two predictive models. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) was established in order to test the predictive ability of the model. Clinical data of 71 patients were collected prospectively to validate the predictive models externally.Results: In this study, 201 fURL operations were successfully completed. The one-phase early SFR was 61.2%. We built two predictive models based on random forest and XGBoost machine learning algorithm. The predictive variables’ importance scores were obtained. The area under the ROC curve (AUROC) of the two predictive models for early stone clearance status prediction was 0.77. In the study, 71 test samples were used for external validation. The results showed that the total predictive accuracy, predictive specificity and predictive sensitivity of the random forest and XGBoost models were 75.7%, 82.6%, 60.0%, and 81.4%, 87.0%, 68.0%, respectively. The first four predictive variables in importance were stone volume, mean stone density, maximal stone density and BMI in both random forest and XGBoost predictive models.Conclusion: The predictive models based on random forest and XGBoost machine learning algorithm can predict postoperative early stone status after fURL for renal stones accurately, which will facilitate preoperative evaluation and clinical decision-making. Stone volume, mean stone density, maximal stone density and BMI may be the important predictive factors affecting early SFR after fURL for renal stones.

Key words: Machine learning, Random forest, XGBoost, Renal stones, Stone-free rate, Predictive model

CLC Number: 

  • R692.4

Figure 1

Measurement methods for renal anatomic parameters IPA, infundibulopelvic angle; IW, infundibular width; IL, infundibular length; PCH, pelvic caliceal height."

Table 1

Comparison of demographic data and stone characteristics between stone-free group and stone-residual group"

Items Stone-free group (n=123) Stone-residual group (n=78) P value
Male, n (%) 75.0 (61.0) 44.0 (56.4) 0.163a
Age/year, x?±s 51.4±14.4 50.5±13.4 0.655b
BMI/(kg/m2), median (min-max) 25.0 (18.0-33.1) 24.5 (17.7-35.0) 0.475c
History of urologic operation, n (%) 32.0 (26.0) 27.0 (34.6) 0.192a
Hydronephrosis, n (%) 67.0 (54.5) 53.0 (68.0) 0.058a
Low calyceal stones, n (%) 75 (61.0) 51.0 (65.4) 0.887a
Stone number, median (min-max) 1.0 (1.0-5.0) 1.5 (1.0-5.0) 0.000c
Stone volume/mm3, median (min-max) 492.7 (8.37-15 055.4) 1 406.7 (133.2-11 992.0) 0.000c
Mean stone density/Hu, x?±s 548.7±273.7 734.2±299.1 0.000b
Maximal stone density/Hu, median (min-max) 1 049.0 (240.0-2 134.0) 1 266.00 (304.0-1 819.0) 0.000c
Operation time/min, median (min-max) 89.0 (20.0-326.0) 111.0 (22.0-282.0) 0.000c

Table 2

Comparison of low calyceal anatomic parameters between stone-free group and stone-residual group"

Items Stone-free group (n=75) Stone-residual group (n=51) P value
PCH/mm, x?±s 17.0±4.3 21.8±5.3 0.000b
IPA/(°), median (min-max) 44.3 (29.2-71.5) 34.9 (22.3-44.6) 0.000c
IL/mm, x?±s 22.9±3.7 27.8±5.0 0.000b
IW/mm, median (min-max) 7.3 (1.0-22.0) 6.8 (1.0-9.5) 0.076c

Figure 2

Importance score of predictive variables in random forest and XGBoost models BMI, body mass index; IPA, infundibulopelvic angle; IW, infundibular width; IL, infundibular length; PCH, pelvic caliceal height."

Figure 3

ROC for stone clearance prediction of random forest and XGBoost models TPR (false positive rate)=Sensitivity; FPR (true positive rate)=1-Specificity; ROC, receiver operating characteristic curve."

Table 3

The predictive value of random forest and XGBoost model"

Items Stone-residual Stone-free Total
Random forest model, n
Positive 15 8 23
Negative 10 38 48
Total 25 46 71
XGBoost model, n
Positive 17 6 23
Negative 8 40 48
Total 25 46 71
[1] Zeng G, Mai Z, Xia S , et al. Prevalence of kidney stones in China: an ultrasonography based cross-sectional study[J]. BJU Int, 2017,120(1):109-116.
[2] Sanguedolce F, Bozzini G, Chew B , et al. The evolving role of retrograde intrarenal surgery in the treatment of urolithiasis[J]. Eur Urol Focus, 2017,3(1):46-55.
[3] Berardinelli F, Proietti S, Cindolo L , et al. A prospective multicenter European study on flexible ureterorenoscopy for the management of renal stone[J]. Int Braz J Urol, 2016,42(3):479-486.
[4] 杨波, 胡卫国, 胡浩 , 等. 逆行肾内手术治疗肾结石失败的原因分析及其对策[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2014,46(5):794-797.
[5] Resorlu B, Unsal A, Gulec H , et al. A new scoring system for predicting stone-free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery: the “resorlu-unsal stone score”[J]. Urology, 2012,80(3):512-518.
[6] Jung JW, Lee BK, Park YH , et al. Modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity score for retrograde intrarenal surgery[J]. Urolithiasis, 2014,42(4):335-340.
[7] Ito H, Sakamaki K, Kawahara T , et al. Development and internal validation of a nomogram for predicting stone-free status after flexible ureteroscopy for renal stones[J]. BJU Int, 2015,115(3):446-451.
[8] Xiao YL, Li D, Chen L , et al. The R.I.R.S. scoring system: An innovative scoring system for predicting stone-free rate following retrograde intrarenal surgery[J]. BMC Urol, 2017,17(1):105.
[9] Breiman L . Random forests[J]. Mach Learn, 2001,45(1):5-32.
[10] Chen T, Guestrin C. XGboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining [C]. San Francisco, California, USA, 2016: 785-794.
[11] Mei X, Wang R, Yang W , et al. Predicting malignancy of pulmonary ground-glass nodules and their invasiveness by random forest[J]. J Thorac Dis, 2018,10(1):458-463.
[12] Taylor RA, Moore CL, Cheung KH , et al. Predicting urinary tract infection in the emergency department with machine learning[J]. PLoS One, 2018,13(3):e0194085.
[13] 刘可, 肖春雷, 刘余庆 , 等. 标准化技术输尿管软镜钬激光碎石术治疗输尿管近端及肾结石:单中心140例报告[J]. 中国微创外科杂志, 2015,15(12):1065-1068, 1087.
[14] Ghani KR, Wolf JS Jr . What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones?[J]. Nat Rev Urol, 2015,12(5):281-288.
[15] Ito H, Kawahara T, Terao H , et al. The most reliable preoperative assessment of renal stone burden as a predictor of stone-free status after flexible ureteroscopy with holmium laser lithotripsy: a single-center experience[J]. Urology, 2012,80(3):524-528.
[16] Resorlu B, Oguz U, Resorlu EB , et al. The impact of pelvica-liceal anatomy on the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with lower pole renal stone[J]. Urology, 2012,79(1):61-66.
[17] 曹文哲, 应俊, 陈广飞 , 等. 基于Logistic回归和随机森林算法的2型糖尿病并发视网膜病变风险预测及对比研究[J]. 中国医疗设备, 2016,31(3):33-38, 69.
doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-1633.2016.03.006
[18] Kang SK, Cho KS, Kang DH , et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis to compare success rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2 cm: An update[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017,96(49):e9119.
[19] Inoue T, Murota T, Okada S , et al. Influence of pelvicaliceal anatomy on stone clearance after flexible ureteroscopy and holmium laser lithotripsy for large renal stones[J]. J Eudourol, 2015,29(9):998-1005.
[20] Sari S, Ozok Hu, Topaloglu H , et al. The association of a number of anatomical factors with the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery in lower calyceal stones[J]. Urol J, 2017,14(4):4008-4014.
[21] 王训师 . XGBoost机器学习模型在缺血性卒中后早期认知损害诊断中的应用研究[D]. 杭州:浙江大学, 2018.
[22] Jessen JP, Honeck P, Knoll T , et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones: influence of the collecting system’s anatomy[J]. J Endourol, 2014,28(2):146-151.
[23] Nicodemus KK, Malley JD, Strobl C , et al. The behavior of random forest permutation-based variable importance measures under predictor correlation[J]. BMC Bioinformatics, 2010,11:110.
[1] Hailong HE,Qing LI,Tao XU,Xiaowei ZHANG. Construction of a predictive model for postoperative pain relief after microscopic spermatic cord surgery for spermatic cord pain [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(4): 646-655.
[2] WU Jing-yi,LIN Yu,LIN Ke,HU Yong-hua,KONG Gui-lan. Predicting prolonged length of intensive care unit stay via machine learning [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1163-1170.
[3] LIN Yu,WU Jing-yi,LIN Ke,HU Yong-hua,KONG Gui-lan. Prediction of intensive care unit readmission for critically ill patients based on ensemble learning [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(3): 566-572.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!