| Literature DB >> 32024469 |
Xue Sha1, Guanzhong Gong2, Qingtao Qiu2, Jinghao Duan2, Dengwang Li1, Yong Yin3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to develop radiomic models based on different phases of computed tomography (CT) imaging and to investigate the efficacy of models for diagnosing mediastinal metastatic lymph nodes (LNs) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Mediastinal lymph nodes; Non-small cell lung cancer; Radiomic model
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32024469 PMCID: PMC7003415 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-020-0416-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 1.930
Fig. 1CT images from a 56-year-old man with mediastinal LNM confirmed by pathology. Panels a, b and c show the ROIs on plain, arterial and venous phase CT images, respectively
Characteristics of patients in the training and validation cohorts
| Characteristic | Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender, n(%) | 0.570 | ||
| male | 40 (65.6) | 18 (72.0) | |
| female | 21 (34.4) | 7 (28.0) | |
| Age (years) | 0.139 | ||
| Mean | 58.64 | 60.25 | |
| Range | 35–84 | 42–78 | |
| T stage, n(%) | 0.818 | ||
| T1 | 16 (26.2) | 6 (24.0) | |
| T2 | 28 (45.9) | 14 (56.0) | |
| T3 | 7 (11.5) | 1(4.0) | |
| T4 | 10 (16.4) | 4 (16.0) | |
| N stage, n(%) | 0.123 | ||
| N0 | 9(14.8) | 7 (28.0) | |
| N1 | 6 (9.8) | 2 (8.0) | |
| N2 | 19 (31.1) | 9 (36.0) | |
| N3 | 27 (44.3) | 7 (28.0) | |
| M stage, n(%) | 0.576 | ||
| M0 | 35 (57.4) | 16 (64.0) | |
| M1 | 26 (42.6) | 9 (36.0) | |
| Pathological subtype, n(%) | 0.394 | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 36 (59.0) | 17 (68) | |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 23 (37.7) | 8 (32) | |
| Large cell lung cancer | 2 (3.3) | 0 (0) | |
| Lymph nodes status, n(%) | 0.885 | ||
| Positive | 99 (60.7) | 42 (61.8) | |
| Negative | 64 (39.3) | 26 (38.2) |
Fig. 2The feature selection process. a LASSO coefficient profiles of the 841 features. b Tuning parameters (λ) selected in the LASSO model were used for applied 10-fold cross-validation with the minimum criteria. The Y-axis indicates misclassification errors, and the lower X-axis indicates the average deviance ln(λ) values, which were − 2.19, − 2.44, − 2.14, − 1.61, − 1.75, and − 2.61 in models 1–6, respectively. The vertical lines through the red dots show the upper and lower limits of the deviances. Dotted vertical lines were drawn at the optimal values using the minimum criteria with 1 standard error (the 1-SE criteria). Numbers along the upper X-axis represent the average number of predictors
Fig. 3ROC curves of the radiomic models. Panels a-f correspond to models 1–6, respectively
Efficacy of models for identifying mediastinal LNM in the training and validation groups
| Model | Group | AUC | SEN | SPE | ACC | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | training | 0.926 | 0.879 | 0.860 | 0.871 | 0.906 | 0.821 |
| validation | 0.925 | 0.952 | 0.769 | 0.882 | 0.870 | 0.909 | |
| 2 | training | 0.875 | 0.929 | 0.609 | 0.804 | 0.786 | 0.848 |
| validation | 0.876 | 0.976 | 0.423 | 0.765 | 0.732 | 0.917 | |
| 3 | training | 0.857 | 0.919 | 0.469 | 0.742 | 0.728 | 0.789 |
| validation | 0.802 | 0.905 | 0.500 | 0.750 | 0.745 | 0.765 | |
| 4 | training | 0.850 | 0.949 | 0.563 | 0.798 | 0.770 | 0.878 |
| validation | 0.813 | 0.952 | 0.423 | 0.750 | 0.727 | 0.846 | |
| 5 | training | 0.831 | 0.879 | 0.594 | 0.767 | 0.770 | 0.760 |
| validation | 0.800 | 0.952 | 0.615 | 0.824 | 0.889 | 0.889 | |
| 6 | training | 0.841 | 0.979 | 0.281 | 0.706 | 0.678 | 0.900 |
| validation | 0.702 | 0.928 | 0.192 | 0.647 | 0.650 | 0.625 |
SEN sensitivity, SPE specificity, ACC accuracy, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value