Literature DB >> 27663588

Radiological Image Traits Predictive of Cancer Status in Pulmonary Nodules.

Ying Liu1,2, Yoganand Balagurunathan2, Thomas Atwater3, Sanja Antic3, Qian Li1,2, Ronald C Walker3,4,5, Gary T Smith4,5, Pierre P Massion3,4,5, Matthew B Schabath6, Robert J Gillies7.   

Abstract

Purpose: We propose a systematic methodology to quantify incidentally identified pulmonary nodules based on observed radiological traits (semantics) quantified on a point scale and a machine-learning method using these data to predict cancer status.Experimental Design: We investigated 172 patients who had low-dose CT images, with 102 and 70 patients grouped into training and validation cohorts, respectively. On the images, 24 radiological traits were systematically scored and a linear classifier was built to relate the traits to malignant status. The model was formed both with and without size descriptors to remove bias due to nodule size. The multivariate pairs formed on the training set were tested on an independent validation data set to evaluate their performance.
Results: The best 4-feature set that included a size measurement (set 1), was short axis, contour, concavity, and texture, which had an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.88 (accuracy = 81%, sensitivity = 76.2%, specificity = 91.7%). If size measures were excluded, the four best features (set 2) were location, fissure attachment, lobulation, and spiculation, which had an AUROC of 0.83 (accuracy = 73.2%, sensitivity = 73.8%, specificity = 81.7%) in predicting malignancy in primary nodules. The validation test AUROC was 0.8 (accuracy = 74.3%, sensitivity = 66.7%, specificity = 75.6%) and 0.74 (accuracy = 71.4%, sensitivity = 61.9%, specificity = 75.5%) for sets 1 and 2, respectively.Conclusions: Radiological image traits are useful in predicting malignancy in lung nodules. These semantic traits can be used in combination with size-based measures to enhance prediction accuracy and reduce false-positives. Clin Cancer Res; 23(6); 1442-9. ©2016 AACR. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27663588      PMCID: PMC5527551          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-3102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  40 in total

1.  Multidetector CT features of pulmonary focal ground-glass opacity: differences between benign and malignant.

Authors:  L Fan; S-Y Liu; Q-C Li; H Yu; X-S Xiao
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 2.  Radiologic evaluation of the solitary pulmonary nodule.

Authors:  W R Webb
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Malignant versus benign nodules at CT screening for lung cancer: comparison of thin-section CT findings.

Authors:  Feng Li; Shusuke Sone; Hiroyuki Abe; Heber Macmahon; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-21       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  The kappa statistic in reliability studies: use, interpretation, and sample size requirements.

Authors:  Julius Sim; Chris C Wright
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2005-03

5.  Short- and long-term lung cancer risk associated with noncalcified nodules observed on low-dose CT.

Authors:  Paul F Pinsky; P Hrudaya Nath; David S Gierada; Sushil Sonavane; Eva Szabo
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2014-04-22

Review 6.  A practical algorithmic approach to the diagnosis and management of solitary pulmonary nodules: part 2: pretest probability and algorithm.

Authors:  Vishal K Patel; Sagar K Naik; David P Naidich; William D Travis; Jeremy A Weingarten; Richard Lazzaro; David D Gutterman; Catherine Wentowski; Horiana B Grosu; Suhail Raoof
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 9.410

7.  Overdiagnosis in chest radiographic screening for lung carcinoma: frequency.

Authors:  David F Yankelevitz; William J Kostis; Claudia I Henschke; Robert T Heelan; Daniel M Libby; Mark W Pasmantier; James P Smith
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-01       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Lung cancer risk and cancer-specific mortality in subjects undergoing routine imaging test when stratified with and without identified lung nodule on imaging study.

Authors:  Noemi Gómez-Sáez; Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado; José Vilar; Isabel González-Alvarez; María Fermina Lorente; María Luisa Domingo; María Pastor Valero; Lucy Anne Parker; Blanca Lumbreras
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Pitfalls of supervised feature selection.

Authors:  Pawel Smialowski; Dmitrij Frishman; Stefan Kramer
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-10-29       Impact factor: 6.937

10.  Baseline characteristics of participants in the randomized national lung screening trial.

Authors:  Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; Jonathan D Clapp; Kathy L Clingan; Ilana F Gareen; David A Lynch; Pamela M Marcus; Paul F Pinsky
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 13.506

View more
  39 in total

1.  LUNGx Challenge for computerized lung nodule classification.

Authors:  Samuel G Armato; Karen Drukker; Feng Li; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Georgia D Tourassi; Roger M Engelmann; Maryellen L Giger; George Redmond; Keyvan Farahani; Justin S Kirby; Laurence P Clarke
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2016-12-19

2.  Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal oncological radiology.

Authors:  Matjaz Vogrin; Teodor Trojner; Robi Kelc
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2020-11-10       Impact factor: 2.991

Review 3.  Current Applications and Future Impact of Machine Learning in Radiology.

Authors:  Garry Choy; Omid Khalilzadeh; Mark Michalski; Synho Do; Anthony E Samir; Oleg S Pianykh; J Raymond Geis; Pari V Pandharipande; James A Brink; Keith J Dreyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-06-26       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Representation of Deep Features using Radiologist defined Semantic Features.

Authors:  Rahul Paul; Ying Liu; Qian Li; Lawrence Hall; Dmitry Goldgof; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Matthew Schabath; Robert Gillies
Journal:  Proc Int Jt Conf Neural Netw       Date:  2018-09-15

5.  Prognostic value and molecular correlates of a CT image-based quantitative pleural contact index in early stage NSCLC.

Authors:  Juheon Lee; Yi Cui; Xiaoli Sun; Bailiang Li; Jia Wu; Dengwang Li; Michael F Gensheimer; Billy W Loo; Maximilian Diehn; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 6.  Radiomics: from qualitative to quantitative imaging.

Authors:  William Rogers; Sithin Thulasi Seetha; Turkey A G Refaee; Relinde I Y Lieverse; Renée W Y Granzier; Abdalla Ibrahim; Simon A Keek; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Sergey P Primakov; Manon P L Beuque; Damiënne Marcus; Alexander M A van der Wiel; Fadila Zerka; Cary J G Oberije; Janita E van Timmeren; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  The Emerging Role of Radiomics in COPD and Lung Cancer.

Authors:  Turkey Refaee; Guangyao Wu; Abdallah Ibrahim; Iva Halilaj; Ralph T H Leijenaar; William Rogers; Hester A Gietema; Lizza E L Hendriks; Philippe Lambin; Henry C Woodruff
Journal:  Respiration       Date:  2020-01-28       Impact factor: 3.580

8.  Data Science in Radiology: A Path Forward.

Authors:  Hugo J W L Aerts
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 12.531

9.  Combining multi-scale feature fusion with multi-attribute grading, a CNN model for benign and malignant classification of pulmonary nodules.

Authors:  Jumin Zhao; Chen Zhang; Dengao Li; Jing Niu
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-08       Impact factor: 4.056

Review 10.  Targeting acidity in cancer and diabetes.

Authors:  Robert J Gillies; Christian Pilot; Yoshinori Marunaka; Stefano Fais
Journal:  Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 10.680

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.