Qian Li1, Yoganand Balagurunathan2, Ying Liu3, Jin Qi1, Matthew B Schabath4, Zhaoxiang Ye5, Robert J Gillies6. 1. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China; Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. 2. Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. 3. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China. 4. Department of Cancer Epidemiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. 5. Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China. Electronic address: yezhaoxiang@163.com. 6. Department of Cancer Imaging and Metabolism, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL. Electronic address: robert.gillies@moffitt.org.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Lung computed tomography (CT) Screening Reporting and Data System (lung-RADS) has standardized follow-up and management decisions in lung cancer screening. To date, little is known how lung-RADS classification compares with radiological semantic features in risk prediction and diagnostic discrimination. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of radiological semantic features and lung-RADS in predicting nodule malignancy in lung cancer screening. METHODS: We used data and low-dose CT (LDCT) images from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The training cohort contained 60 patients with screen-detected incident lung cancers who had a positive baseline screen (T0) that was not diagnosed and then was diagnosed at second follow-up (T2), and 139 nodule-positive controls who had 3 consecutive positive screens (T0 to T2) that were not diagnosed as lung cancer. The testing cohort included 40 patients with incident lung cancers that were diagnosed at first follow-up (T1) and 40 nodule-positive controls. Twenty-four semantic features were scored on a point scale from the LDCT images. Multivariable linear predictor model was built on the semantic features and the performances were compared with lung-RADS in 3 screening rounds. We also combined non-size-based semantic features with lung-RADS to improve malignancy detection. RESULTS: At T0, the average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for border definition in risk prediction was 0.72. The average AUROC for contour at T1 in risk prediction and T2 in diagnostic discrimination was 0.82 and 0.88, respectively. By comparison, the average AUROC of lung-RADS at T0, T1 and T2 were 0.60, 0.76 and 0.87, respectively. The combined model of the semantic features and lung-RADS shows improvement with AUROCs of 0.74, 0.88 and 0.96 at T0, T1, and T2, respectively, achieved by adding border definition (at T0) or contour (at T1 and T2). CONCLUSION: We find semantic features defined by border definition and contour performed similar to lung-RADS at follow-up time point and outperformed lung-RADS at baseline. These semantics alongside of lung-RADS shows improved performance to detect malignancy.
RATIONALE: Lung computed tomography (CT) Screening Reporting and Data System (lung-RADS) has standardized follow-up and management decisions in lung cancer screening. To date, little is known how lung-RADS classification compares with radiological semantic features in risk prediction and diagnostic discrimination. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of radiological semantic features and lung-RADS in predicting nodule malignancy in lung cancer screening. METHODS: We used data and low-dose CT (LDCT) images from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST). The training cohort contained 60 patients with screen-detected incident lung cancers who had a positive baseline screen (T0) that was not diagnosed and then was diagnosed at second follow-up (T2), and 139 nodule-positive controls who had 3 consecutive positive screens (T0 to T2) that were not diagnosed as lung cancer. The testing cohort included 40 patients with incident lung cancers that were diagnosed at first follow-up (T1) and 40 nodule-positive controls. Twenty-four semantic features were scored on a point scale from the LDCT images. Multivariable linear predictor model was built on the semantic features and the performances were compared with lung-RADS in 3 screening rounds. We also combined non-size-based semantic features with lung-RADS to improve malignancy detection. RESULTS: At T0, the average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for border definition in risk prediction was 0.72. The average AUROC for contour at T1 in risk prediction and T2 in diagnostic discrimination was 0.82 and 0.88, respectively. By comparison, the average AUROC of lung-RADS at T0, T1 and T2 were 0.60, 0.76 and 0.87, respectively. The combined model of the semantic features and lung-RADS shows improvement with AUROCs of 0.74, 0.88 and 0.96 at T0, T1, and T2, respectively, achieved by adding border definition (at T0) or contour (at T1 and T2). CONCLUSION: We find semantic features defined by border definition and contour performed similar to lung-RADS at follow-up time point and outperformed lung-RADS at baseline. These semantics alongside of lung-RADS shows improved performance to detect malignancy.
Authors: Rebecca M Lindell; Thomas E Hartman; Stephen J Swensen; James R Jett; David E Midthun; Henry D Tazelaar; Jayawant N Mandrekar Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Brady J McKee; Shawn M Regis; Andrea B McKee; Sebastian Flacke; Christoph Wald Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2014-08-28 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: David S Gierada; Paul Pinsky; Hrudaya Nath; Caroline Chiles; Fenghai Duan; Denise R Aberle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-10-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rahul Paul; Matthew Schabath; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Ying Liu; Qian Li; Robert Gillies; Lawrence O Hall; Dmitry B Goldgof Journal: Tomography Date: 2019-03
Authors: Hong Lu; Jongphil Kim; Jin Qi; Qian Li; Ying Liu; Matthew B Schabath; Zhaoxiang Ye; Robert J Gillies; Yoganand Balagurunathan Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 3.989
Authors: Dalia Fahmy; Heba Kandil; Adel Khelifi; Maha Yaghi; Mohammed Ghazal; Ahmed Sharafeldeen; Ali Mahmoud; Ayman El-Baz Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Yoganand Balagurunathan; Andrew Beers; Michael Mcnitt-Gray; Lubomir Hadjiiski; Sandy Napel; Dmitry Goldgof; Gustavo Perez; Pablo Arbelaez; Alireza Mehrtash; Tina Kapur; Ehwa Yang; Jung Won Moon; Gabriel Bernardino Perez; Ricard Delgado-Gonzalo; M Mehdi Farhangi; Amir A Amini; Renkun Ni; Xue Feng; Aditya Bagari; Kiran Vaidhya; Benjamin Veasey; Wiem Safta; Hichem Frigui; Joseph Enguehard; Ali Gholipour; Laura Silvana Castillo; Laura Alexandra Daza; Paul Pinsky; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Keyvan Farahani Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2021-11-30 Impact factor: 11.037