Hyungjin Kim1, Jin Mo Goo1,2, Chang Min Park3,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. 2. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, and Institute of Radiation Medicine, Seoul National University Medical Research Center, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. cmpark.morphius@gmail.com. 4. Cancer Research Institute, Seoul National University, 101, Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Korea. cmpark.morphius@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a concise prediction model using simple size measures for the discrimination of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas (IPAs) among incidentally detected subsolid nodules (SSNs) considered for resection and to compare its diagnostic performance with the Brock model. METHODS: This retrospective institutional review board-approved study included 427 surgically resected SSNs (121 preinvasive lesions/minimally invasive adenocarcinomas [MIAs] and 306 IPAs) from 407 patients. After stratified random splitting of the study population into the training and validation sets (3:1), a simple logistic model was constructed using nodule size, solid proportion, and type for the differentiation of IPAs. Diagnostic performance of this model was compared with the original and modified Brock models using the DeLong method for area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and McNemar test for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Our proposed model had an AUC of 0.859 in the validation set, while the original Brock model showed an AUC of 0.775 (p = 0.035) and the modified Brock model exhibited an AUC of 0.787 (p = 0.006). At equally high specificity of 90%, our proposed model exhibited significantly higher sensitivity (65.8%) than the original and modified Brock models (38.2% and 50.0%; p < 0.001 and 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study results demonstrated that the proposed concise model outperformed both Brock models, demonstrating its potential to be utilized as a specific tool to differentiate IPAs from preinvasive lesions and MIAs, which were considered for resection. External validation studies are warranted for the population with incidentally detected SSNs including small SSNs to confirm our observations. KEY POINTS: • Size measures provided sufficient information for the risk stratification of surgical candidate incidental subsolid nodules. • Our proposed concise model showed higher diagnostic performance than the Brock model for incidentally detected subsolid nodules. • Our proposed model can specifically differentiate invasive adenocarcinomas among incidentally detected subsolid nodules and reduce overtreatment for indolent subsolid nodules.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a concise prediction model using simple size measures for the discrimination of invasive pulmonary adenocarcinomas (IPAs) among incidentally detected subsolid nodules (SSNs) considered for resection and to compare its diagnostic performance with the Brock model. METHODS: This retrospective institutional review board-approved study included 427 surgically resected SSNs (121 preinvasive lesions/minimally invasive adenocarcinomas [MIAs] and 306 IPAs) from 407 patients. After stratified random splitting of the study population into the training and validation sets (3:1), a simple logistic model was constructed using nodule size, solid proportion, and type for the differentiation of IPAs. Diagnostic performance of this model was compared with the original and modified Brock models using the DeLong method for area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and McNemar test for diagnostic sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Our proposed model had an AUC of 0.859 in the validation set, while the original Brock model showed an AUC of 0.775 (p = 0.035) and the modified Brock model exhibited an AUC of 0.787 (p = 0.006). At equally high specificity of 90%, our proposed model exhibited significantly higher sensitivity (65.8%) than the original and modified Brock models (38.2% and 50.0%; p < 0.001 and 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our study results demonstrated that the proposed concise model outperformed both Brock models, demonstrating its potential to be utilized as a specific tool to differentiate IPAs from preinvasive lesions and MIAs, which were considered for resection. External validation studies are warranted for the population with incidentally detected SSNs including small SSNs to confirm our observations. KEY POINTS: • Size measures provided sufficient information for the risk stratification of surgical candidate incidental subsolid nodules. • Our proposed concise model showed higher diagnostic performance than the Brock model for incidentally detected subsolid nodules. • Our proposed model can specifically differentiate invasive adenocarcinomas among incidentally detected subsolid nodules and reduce overtreatment for indolent subsolid nodules.
Authors: David M Hansell; Alexander A Bankier; Heber MacMahon; Theresa C McLoud; Nestor L Müller; Jacques Remy Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Hyungjin Kim; Su Bin Park; Bram van Ginneken; Gilbert R Ferretti; Chang Hyun Lee; Jin Mo Goo; Chang Min Park Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Julien G Cohen; Jin Mo Goo; Roh-Eul Yoo; Chang Min Park; Chang Hyun Lee; Bram van Ginneken; Doo Hyun Chung; Young Tae Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-05 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sarah E Billmeier; John Z Ayanian; Alan M Zaslavsky; David R Nerenz; Michael T Jaklitsch; Selwyn O Rogers Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jane P Ko; James Suh; Opeyemi Ibidapo; Joanna G Escalon; Jinyu Li; Harvey Pass; David P Naidich; Bernard Crawford; Emily B Tsai; Chi Wan Koo; Artem Mikheev; Henry Rusinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-04-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Hee-Dong Chae; Chang Min Park; Sang Joon Park; Sang Min Lee; Kwang Gi Kim; Jin Mo Goo Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Constance de Margerie-Mellon; Ritu R Gill; Pascal Salazar; Anastasia Oikonomou; Elsie T Nguyen; Benedikt H Heidinger; Mayra A Medina; Paul A VanderLaan; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 4.379