Abstract
Purpose
To predict the post transurethral prostate resection(TURP) urethral stricture probability by applying different machine learning algorithms using the data obtained from preoperative blood parameters.
Methods
A retrospective analysis of data from patients who underwent bipolar-TURP encompassing patient characteristics, preoperative routine blood test outcomes, and post-surgery uroflowmetry were used to develop and educate machine learning models. Various metrics, such as F1 score, model accuracy, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, Youden Index, ROC AUC value, and confidence interval for each model, were used to assess the predictive performance of machine learning models for urethral stricture development.
Results
A total of 109 patients’ data (55 patients without urethral stricture and 54 patients with urethral stricture) were included in the study after implementing strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The preoperative Platelet Distribution Width, Mean Platelet Volume, Plateletcrit, Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time, and Prothrombin Time values were statistically meaningful between the two cohorts. After applying the data to the machine learning systems, the accuracy prediction scores for the diverse algorithms were as follows: decision trees (0.82), logistic regression (0.82), random forests (0.91), support vector machines (0.86), K-nearest neighbors (0.82), and naïve Bayes (0.77).
Conclusion
Our machine learning models’ accuracy in predicting the post-TURP urethral stricture probability has demonstrated significant success. Exploring prospective studies that integrate supplementary variables has the potential to enhance the precision and accuracy of machine learning models, consequently progressing their ability to predict post-TURP urethral stricture risk.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (BPH) presents a prevalent health concern impacting the overall well-being of men, typically manifesting in their 40 s and becoming more pronounced with age [1]. Severe BPH is notably prevalent in approximately 40% of men in their 60 s, and this proportion escalates to 50% as they advance in years [2].
Medical treatments are primarily used in the treatment of BPH. In cases where medical treatment is inadequate, surgical treatments such as resection or enucleation are planned [3]. Although different surgical methods, such as laser resection with Thulium, transurethral incision, transvesical open prostatectomy, and laser enucleation with holmium, are available, currently, the gold standard and the most frequently employed surgical method for BPH is transurethral resection of the prostate (TUR-P) [4]. Although TUR-P is recognized as an efficacious therapeutic approach, it is not exempt from prospective complications. Adverse outcomes after the procedure, such as incontinence, urethral stricture, and bladder neck stenosis, have the potential to significantly impact the patient's overall quality of life [5].
Urethral stricture may manifest in up to 10% of cases TUR-P, necessitating repeated surgical intervention [5,6,7]. While the precise mechanisms leading to the formation of urethral stricture remain uncertain, it is proposed that fibrosis emerges as a consequence of inflammatory processes occurring within the urethral epithelium and subepithelial tissues, ultimately resulting in stricture formation [8]. The occurrence of urethral stricture after transurethral TUR-P has been documented to be correlated with various risk factors. These include, but are not limited to, factors such as age, duration of the surgical procedure, prostate volume, the expertise of the surgeon, and the presence of infection [9]. Given the pivotal role of inflammation in the pathogenesis of urethral stricture, recent studies have concentrated their efforts on investigating this aspect. These studies aim to predict the risk of urethral stricture by quantifying inflammation levels on an individual basis [10,11,12,13].
Despite all these studies, there is currently no established marker or method capable of predicting the inflammation related to the development of urethral stricture after TUR-P. In recent years, there has been a growing prevalence of employing artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms in the realm of healthcare. Machine learning is increasingly harnessed for the interpretation of patient images and the prediction of potential pathologies through the analysis of patient data [14, 15]. In light of these advancements, we aimed to predict the development of postoperative urethral stricture by evaluating the data obtained from preoperative blood parameters with different machine learning algorithms in patients undergoing TUR-P for BPH.
Methods
Approval for this study was obtained from Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee (Decision no: 2023/16).
Study population
We retrospectively analyzed data from patients who underwent bipolar TUR-P using the GyrusPlasmaKineticTM system (Gyrus ACMI, USA) from January 2015 to January 2022, with ethical approval from the local ethics committee. To minimize bias, cases performed by two urologists with at least five years of TUR-P experience were included. Data included patient characteristics, preoperative blood test results, and post-surgery uroflowmetry outcomes. Parameters such as age, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, prostate volume, and perioperative operation times were recorded. TUR-P utilized a standard continuous irrigating resectoscope with a 26 French outer sheath, and plasmakinetics settings were 200 W for shearing and 120 W for coagulation. A tri-way 20 F Foley catheter remained for 2–4 days post-surgery. Discharged patients underwent uroflowmetry at 1, 3, and 12 months post-discharge.Endoscopy with flexible cystoscopy was performed under local anesthesia in patients in whom stenosis pattern was detected on uroflowmetry. Patients were not classified according to urethral stricture localization. All urethral strictures were confirmed by cystoscopy. Patients were grouped based on stricture presence. Exclusion criteria applied to those with urethral issues, bladder neck strictures, cancer treatments, hematologic disorders, infections during surgery, strictures at prior resection sites, and those receiving blood transfusions. In addition, patients with incomplete data after TUR-P and patients who underwent urological interventional procedures in another center after the operation were excluded from the study.
Data collection
We gathered perioperative hematological parameters, PSA, alanine aminotransferase (ALT),aspartate aminotransferase (AST),activated partial thromboplastin clotting time, prothrombin time, international normalized ratio (INR), and age at TURP from patient records. Calculated indices included:
-
De Ritis Ratio(DRR) = AST/ALT
-
NLR = Neutrophil Count/Lymphocyte Count
-
Mentzer Index(MI) = MCV/RBC
-
PLR = Platelet Count/(Lymphocyte Count*1000)
-
Lymphocyte/Monocyte Ratio (LMR) = Lymphocyte Count/Monocyte Count
-
Systemic Inflammatory Response Index (SIRI) = (Neutrophil Count*Monocyte Count)/Lymphocyte Count
-
Systemic Immune-Inflammatory Index (SII) = (Neutrophil Count*Platelet Count)/(Lymphocyte Count *1000)
Machine learning
To predict urethral stricture development post-TUR-P for BPH, we used decision trees, logistic regression, random forests, support vector machine (SVM), k-nearest neighbors (k-NN), and naive Bayes algorithms. Data were split into 80% training and 20% test subsets for each model. Predictive performance was evaluated using F1 score, accuracy, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, Youden Index, ROC AUC value, and confidence interval. Python 3.11.5 with libraries, pandas 2.1.1, numpy 1.26.0, matplotlib 3.8.0, seaborn 0.12.0, and scikit-learn 1.3.1 were used for model implementation.
Data visualization
To assess calibration and performance, we utilized ROC curves and confusion matrices for machine learning models. A heatmap, generated with Python libraries seaborn 0.12.0, numpy 1.26.0, and matplotlib 3.8.0 was employed to compare the effectiveness of all models.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistical analyses for groups with and without urethral strictures were performed using Python libraries pandas 2.1.1 and scipy 1.11.2, calculating mean ± standard deviation values. The homogeneity of the data distribution was then evaluated using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Statistical analyses were performed using t-test for the data that fit the normal distribution, while Mann–Whitney U-Test was used for the data that did not fit the normal distribution. p values of < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.
Results
Patient characteristics
In this study, 615 patients were retrospectively analyzed and a total of 109 patients were included. This cohort was subsequently stratified into two distinct categories: a control group, which encompassed 55 patients who did not exhibit any signs of urethral stricture, and a study group, comprising 54 patients who received a confirmed diagnosis of urethral stricture.
Comprehensive data encompassing surgical age, hematological parameters, ALT, AST, PSA, coagulation parameters, as well as indices such as the NLR, PLR, DRR, Mentzer Index, LMR, SIRI, and SII are meticulously documented and presented in Table 1. Statistical analysis revealed no discernible statistical disparities between these two cohorts, except for preoperative Platelet Distribution Width (PDW), Mean Platelet Volume (MPV), Plateletcrit (PCT), Activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (APTT), and Prothrombin Time (PT) values. Furthermore, the median follow-up period after TURP and the median duration between the TURP procedure and the emergence of recurrence were computed at 12 months (with a range of 10 to 64 months) and 6.4 months, respectively.
There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age (US− = 69.38 ± 8.90 vs. US + = 68.06 ± 7.81, p = 0,41), preoperative prostate volume (US- prostat volume = 72.75 ± 25.09 cc vs. US + prostate volume = 69,28 ± 21.71, p = 0.227) and operative time. (US− = 66.6 ± 18.15 min vs. US + = 62.06 ± 11.28 min, p = 0.12). An analysis of the hematological parameters revealed significant disparities in PDW (16.56 ± 2.22 vs. 11.54 ± 2.41; p < 0.001) and PT (11.11 ± 0.92 vs. 9.12 ± 0.89; p < 0.001) levels in patients who developed urethral stricture compared to those who did not exhibit this condition (Table 1). In stark contrast, patients devoid of urethral stricture showcased noteworthy elevations in MPV (9.85 ± 0.94 vs. 8.27 ± 1.18; p < 0.001), PCT (0.25 ± 0.07 vs. 0.19 ± 0.05; p < 0.001), and APTT (27.53 ± 2.60 vs. 26.09 ± 2.81; p = 0.006) levels, when scrutinized against their counterparts who eventually developed urethral stricture (Table 1). On the other hand, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, preoperative prostate volumes and operation times.
Machine-learning models
A comprehensive predictive modeling effort used various machine learning algorithms, including decision trees, logistic regression, random forests, SVM, k-NN, and naive Bayes. These models aimed to predict the likelihood of urethral stricture after TUR-P using a robust dataset with 35 patient-specific variables. The predictive performance of each model was evaluated, and results are summarized in Fig. 1. Accuracy scores for the algorithms were as follows: decision trees (0.82), logistic regression (0.82), random forests (0.91), SVM (0.86), k-NN (0.82), and naive Bayes (0.77). Corresponding AUC values from ROC curves were:decision trees (0.82), logistic regression (0.79), random forests (0.96), SVM (0.91), k-NN (0.85), and naive Bayes (0.73), emphasizing the discriminative potential of these models (Fig. 2).
To thoroughly evaluate machine learning models predicting urethral stricture development, confusion matrices (Fig. 3) were included. These matrices offer a detailed breakdown of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives. This provides a nuanced view of model accuracy and discriminatory capability in identifying urethral stricture cases.
Discussion
Urethral stricture incidence post-TUR-P ranges from 2.2% to 9.8%, posing significant challenges [5]. Higher risk is noted in those with prior endoscopic urologic surgery. The propensity for urethral stricture after TUR-P is not fully understood. While prior studies explored blood parameters as predictors, our study is the first to integrate these parameters with machine learning for a comprehensive analysis.
Fibroblasts primarily contribute to urethral stricture development, with scarring arising from heightened inflammation due to urine extravasation and minimal bleeding [10]. In urethroplasty specimens, 44% showed chronic inflammation, suggesting inflammation as a key factor [10]. Studies have explored parameters like PLR, NLR, and SII as indicators of inflammation.
Plasma NLR and PLR, nonspecific markers of systemic inflammation, were studied for their role in urethral stricture development post-TUR-P. A 2016 study on PLR's predictive efficacy for anterior urethral strictures reported 84% sensitivity and 64% specificity, focusing exclusively on anterior strictures from TUR-P [12]. In our inclusive study covering all urethral strictures post-TUR-P, PLR showed no significant difference between groups, and NLR did not exhibit a significant relationship. Another 2018 study found increased NLR values in patients with recurrent urethral stricture post internal urethrotomy, compared to those without stricture [13].
A recent investigation found higher SII levels in recurrent urethral stricture cases, with a reported sensitivity of 59.62% and specificity of 70.41% [16]. However, our study observed no statistically significant differences in PLR, NLR, SII, MI, DRR, and SIRI values between the two groups. Notably, MPV and PCT were significantly higher in the group without urethral stricture (MPV: 9.85 ± 0.94 fL vs. 8.27 ± 1.18 fL, PCT: 0.25 ± 0.07 vs. 0.19 ± 0.05), while PDW values were notably higher in the urethral stricture group (PDW: 11.54 ± 2.41 fL vs. 16.56 ± 2.22 fL). These platelet-related parameter disparities between groups may hold significant predictive value for urethral stricture occurrence post-TUR-P.
Six machine learning algorithms were employed to predict urethral stricture development post-TUR-P. Unlike conventional statistical methods, machine learning algorithms excel in predicting and estimating medical conditions due to their ability to handle heterogeneous and interrelated medical data. Our study utilized preoperative laboratory data from patients with urethral stricture after TUR-P to construct a predictive model. Machine learning is widely applied in modern medicine, assisting in differential diagnoses, cancer staging, treatment response determination, and supporting healthcare professionals in various scenarios. In urology, these algorithms have been used to predict postoperative mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer [17], evaluate surgical performance in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [18], and identify biochemical recurrence post robot-assisted radical prostatectomy [19]. A 2022 study using machine learning on retrograde urethrography images accurately detected urethral stricture in 88.5% of cases. Another study successfully employed machine learning on endoscopic images for urethral and ureteral strictures, achieving a sensitivity of 0.96 [14, 15].
We utilized logistic regression, SVM, random forest, decision tree, k-NN, and naive bayes algorithms in our study. To assess model performance, we calculated various metrics, including ROC AUC values, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, Youden Index, sensitivity, specificity, F1 score, and accuracy. Random Forest demonstrated the highest accuracy (0.91), while Naive Bayes had the lowest (0.77). However, relying solely on accuracy may be misleading. The Youden Index, considering both sensitivity and specificity, is more appropriate. The Random Forest model had the highest Youden Index (0.82), while Naive Bayes had the lowest (0.53). Both models successfully discriminate, as their Youden Index values exceed 0.5. In terms of ROC AUC values, Random Forest achieved the highest (0.96), whereas Naive Bayes had the lowest (0.73).
Despite the retrospective nature of our study and its limited sample size, it holds potential significance in identifying patients at risk of developing urethral stricture during the preoperative phase prior to Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TUR-P). By leveraging our findings, clinicians can proactively inform patients about the likelihood of urethral stricture development, enabling the formulation of preemptive treatment strategies aimed at averting such complications. Furthermore, our study stands out in the realm of medical research by pioneering the development of a machine learning model based on blood parameters rather than conventional focus on image processing. This innovative approach underscores the versatility and potential applicability of machine learning techniques beyond traditional domains, promising broader utility in clinical practice. We are optimistic that further refinement and validation of such models could pave the way for their integration into routine clinical workflows, thereby enhancing patient care and outcomes in the future.
The study has limitations, being single-center, retrospective, and conducted in a tertiary university hospital. Due to its retrospective design, inflammation markers couldn't be assessed, and immunohistochemical data from pathology samples are lacking. However, our focus was to enhance the understanding of the urethral stricture-inflammation relationship by including diverse indices and parameters like DRR, NLR, MI, PLR, LMR, SIRI, and SII.
Conclusion
The utilization of machine learning models holds promise in the prediction of urethral stricture, a notable complication subsequent to TUR-P. We posit that the potential utility of such models is particularly pronounced in the context of risk stratification for individuals predisposed to developing urethral stricture following TUR-P. Future studies with larger cohorts and added parameters could enhance specificity and sensitivity, further advancing predictive capabilities for urethral stricture after TUR-P.
References
Lepor H (2004) Pathophysiology, epidemiology, and natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Rev Urol 6(Suppl 9):S3-s10
Cornu JN, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C et al (2015) A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Functional Outcomes and Complications Following Transurethral Procedures for Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Resulting from Benign Prostatic Obstruction: An Update. Eur Urol 67(6):1066–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017
Madersbacher S, Alivizatos G, Nordling J, Sanz CR, Emberton M, De la Rosette JJM (2004) EAU 2004 guidelines on assessment, therapy and follow-up of men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction (BPH guidelines). Eur Urol 46(5):547–554
Cornu JN, Gacci M, Hashim H, Herrmann TRW, Malde S, Netsch C et al. (2023) Non-neurogenic Male LUTS EAU Guidelines
Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R (2006) Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)–incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 50(5):969–979
Komura K, Inamoto T, Takai T, Uchimoto T, Saito K, Tanda N et al (2015) Incidence of urethral stricture after bipolar transurethral resection of the prostate using TURis: results from a randomised trial. BJU Int 115(4):644–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12831
Pirola GM, Castellani D, Lim EJ, Wroclawski L, Nguyen DLQ, Gubbiotti M et al (2022) Urethral stricture following endoscopic prostate surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective, randomized trials. World J Urol 40(6):1391–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-03946-z
Jordan GHMK (2012) Surgery of the penis and urethra, in Campbell-Walsh Urology: 10th ed, AJ We editor-in-chief, Louis R Kavoussi et al.: Saunders; Editor. 2012. p. 967–83
Lentz HC, Mebust WK, Melchior J (1977) Urethral strictures following transurethral prostatectomy: review of 2,223 resections. J Urol 117(2):194–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)58395-0
Grimes MD, Tesdahl BA, Schubbe M, Dahmoush L, Pearlman AM, Kreder KJ et al (2019) Histopathology of Anterior Urethral Strictures: Toward a Better Understanding of Stricture Pathophysiology. J Urol 202(4):748–756. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000340
Xie H, Feng C, Qiang Fu, Sa YL, Xu YM (2014) Crosstalk between TGF-β1 and CXCR3 signaling during urethral fibrosis. Mol Cell Biochem 394(12):283–290
Gül M, Altıntaş E, Kaynar M, Buğday MS, Göktaş S (2017) The predictive value of platelet to lymphocyte and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in determining urethral stricture after transurethral resection of prostate. Turk J Urol 43(3):325–329. https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2017.14478
Urkmez A, Topaktas R, Ozsoy E, Tokuc E, Kutluhan MA, Artuk I et al (2019) Is neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio a predictive factor for recurrence of urethral stricture? Rev Assoc Med Bras 65(12):1448–1453
Kim JK, McCammon K, Robey C, Castillo M, Gomez O, Pua PJL et al (2022) Identifying urethral strictures using machine learning: a proof-of-concept evaluation of convolutional neural network model. World J Urol 40(12):3107–3111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-022-04199-6
Eun SJ, Park JM, Kim KH (2022) Development of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Support Technology for Urethral and Ureteral Stricture Surgery. Int Neurourol J 26(1):78–84. https://doi.org/10.5213/inj.2244064.032
Özsoy E, Kutluhan MA, Tokuç E, Artuk İ, Kayar R, Akyüz Mİ et al (2023) Predictive value of systemic immune-inflammation index in recurrent urethral strictures. Urologia 90(3):510–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/03915603221132033
Wang G, Lam KM, Deng Z, Choi AS (2015) Prediction of mortality after radical cystectomy for bladder cancer by machine learning techniques. Comput Biol Med 63:124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2015.05.015
Hung AJ, Chen J, Che Z, Nilanon T, Jarc A, Titus M et al (2018) Utilizing Machine Learning and Automated Performance Metrics to Evaluate Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy Performance and Predict Outcomes. J Endourol 32(5):438–444. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2018.0035
Wong NC, Lam C, Patterson L, Shayegan B (2019) Use of machine learning to predict early biochemical recurrence after robot-assisted prostatectomy. BJU Int 123(1):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14477
Funding
Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
EA, AS and HB analyzed the results of the study. EA and AS wrote the paper. MG revised the paper. AFB, OK, MK and SG performed data collection and statistical anaylsis. EA, HB and AS designed the study.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Ethical approval
Our study approved by the Selçuk University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee. The study design and all testing procedures were performed according to the ethical standards of the Helsinki Declaration II.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Altıntaş, E., Şahin, A., Babayev, H. et al. Machine learning algorithm predicts urethral stricture following transurethral prostate resection. World J Urol 42, 324 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05017-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-024-05017-x