Noemi Garau1,2, Chiara Paganelli1, Paul Summers2, Wookjin Choi3, Sadegh Alam4, Wei Lu4, Cristiana Fanciullo5, Massimo Bellomi2,6, Guido Baroni1,7, Cristiano Rampinelli2. 1. Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. 2. Division of Radiology, IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCS, Milan, Italy. 3. Department of Engineering and Computer Science, Virginia State University, Petersburg, VA, USA. 4. Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Postgraduate School of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Oncology and Hemato-oncology, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. 7. Bioengineering Unit, CNAO Foundation, Pavia, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Low-dose CT screening allows early lung cancer detection, but is affected by frequent false positive results, inter/intra observer variation and uncertain diagnoses of lung nodules. Radiomics-based models have recently been introduced to overcome these issues, but limitations in demonstrating their generalizability on independent datasets are slowing their introduction to clinic. The aim of this study is to evaluate two radiomics-based models to classify malignant pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT screening, and to externally validate them on an independent cohort. The effect of a radiomics features harmonization technique is also investigated to evaluate its impact on the classification of lung nodules from a multicenter data. METHODS: Pulmonary nodules from two independent cohorts were considered in this study; the first cohort (110 subjects, 113 nodules) was used to train prediction models, and the second cohort (72 nodules) to externally validate them. Literature-based radiomics features were extracted and, after feature selection, used as predictive variables in models for malignancy identification. An in-house prediction model based on artificial neural network (ANN) was implemented and evaluated, along with an alternative model from the literature, based on a support vector machine (SVM) classifier coupled with a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). External validation was performed on the second cohort to evaluate models' generalization ability. Additionally, the impact of the Combat harmonization method was investigated to compensate for multicenter datasets variabilities. A new training of the models based on harmonized features was performed on the first cohort, then tested separately on the harmonized and non-harmonized features of the second cohort. RESULTS: Preliminary results showed a good accuracy of the investigated models in distinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules with both sets of radiomics features (i.e., non-harmonized and harmonized). The performance of the models, quantified in terms of Area Under the Curve (AUC), was > 0.89 in the training set and > 0.82 in the external validation set for all the investigated scenarios, outperforming the clinical standard (AUC of 0.76). Slightly higher performance was observed for the SVM-LASSO model than the ANN in the external dataset, although they did not result significantly different. For both harmonized and non-harmonized features, no statistical difference was found between Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves related to training and test set for both models. CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant improvements were observed when applying the Combat harmonization method, both in-house and literature-based models were able to classify lung nodules with good generalization to an independent dataset, thus showing their potential as tools for clinical decision-making in lung cancer screening.
PURPOSE: Low-dose CT screening allows early lung cancer detection, but is affected by frequent false positive results, inter/intra observer variation and uncertain diagnoses of lung nodules. Radiomics-based models have recently been introduced to overcome these issues, but limitations in demonstrating their generalizability on independent datasets are slowing their introduction to clinic. The aim of this study is to evaluate two radiomics-based models to classify malignant pulmonary nodules in low-dose CT screening, and to externally validate them on an independent cohort. The effect of a radiomics features harmonization technique is also investigated to evaluate its impact on the classification of lung nodules from a multicenter data. METHODS: Pulmonary nodules from two independent cohorts were considered in this study; the first cohort (110 subjects, 113 nodules) was used to train prediction models, and the second cohort (72 nodules) to externally validate them. Literature-based radiomics features were extracted and, after feature selection, used as predictive variables in models for malignancy identification. An in-house prediction model based on artificial neural network (ANN) was implemented and evaluated, along with an alternative model from the literature, based on a support vector machine (SVM) classifier coupled with a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). External validation was performed on the second cohort to evaluate models' generalization ability. Additionally, the impact of the Combat harmonization method was investigated to compensate for multicenter datasets variabilities. A new training of the models based on harmonized features was performed on the first cohort, then tested separately on the harmonized and non-harmonized features of the second cohort. RESULTS: Preliminary results showed a good accuracy of the investigated models in distinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules with both sets of radiomics features (i.e., non-harmonized and harmonized). The performance of the models, quantified in terms of Area Under the Curve (AUC), was > 0.89 in the training set and > 0.82 in the external validation set for all the investigated scenarios, outperforming the clinical standard (AUC of 0.76). Slightly higher performance was observed for the SVM-LASSO model than the ANN in the external dataset, although they did not result significantly different. For both harmonized and non-harmonized features, no statistical difference was found between Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves related to training and test set for both models. CONCLUSIONS: Although no significant improvements were observed when applying the Combat harmonization method, both in-house and literature-based models were able to classify lung nodules with good generalization to an independent dataset, thus showing their potential as tools for clinical decision-making in lung cancer screening.
Authors: Jean-Philippe Fortin; Drew Parker; Birkan Tunç; Takanori Watanabe; Mark A Elliott; Kosha Ruparel; David R Roalf; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Ruben C Gur; Raquel E Gur; Robert T Schultz; Ragini Verma; Russell T Shinohara Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Roger Sun; Elaine Johanna Limkin; Maria Vakalopoulou; Laurent Dercle; Stéphane Champiat; Shan Rong Han; Loïc Verlingue; David Brandao; Andrea Lancia; Samy Ammari; Antoine Hollebecque; Jean-Yves Scoazec; Aurélien Marabelle; Christophe Massard; Jean-Charles Soria; Charlotte Robert; Nikos Paragios; Eric Deutsch; Charles Ferté Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Samuel G Armato; Geoffrey McLennan; Luc Bidaut; Michael F McNitt-Gray; Charles R Meyer; Anthony P Reeves; Binsheng Zhao; Denise R Aberle; Claudia I Henschke; Eric A Hoffman; Ella A Kazerooni; Heber MacMahon; Edwin J R Van Beeke; David Yankelevitz; Alberto M Biancardi; Peyton H Bland; Matthew S Brown; Roger M Engelmann; Gary E Laderach; Daniel Max; Richard C Pais; David P Y Qing; Rachael Y Roberts; Amanda R Smith; Adam Starkey; Poonam Batrah; Philip Caligiuri; Ali Farooqi; Gregory W Gladish; C Matilda Jude; Reginald F Munden; Iva Petkovska; Leslie E Quint; Lawrence H Schwartz; Baskaran Sundaram; Lori E Dodd; Charles Fenimore; David Gur; Nicholas Petrick; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Brian Hughes; Alessi Vande Casteele; Sangeeta Gupte; Maha Sallamm; Michael D Heath; Michael H Kuhn; Ekta Dharaiya; Richard Burns; David S Fryd; Marcos Salganicoff; Vikram Anand; Uri Shreter; Stephen Vastagh; Barbara Y Croft Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ying Liu; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Thomas Atwater; Sanja Antic; Qian Li; Ronald C Walker; Gary T Smith; Pierre P Massion; Matthew B Schabath; Robert J Gillies Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Wookjin Choi; Jung Hun Oh; Sadegh Riyahi; Chia-Ju Liu; Feng Jiang; Wengen Chen; Charles White; Andreas Rimner; James G Mechalakos; Joseph O Deasy; Wei Lu Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Karel G M Moons; Douglas G Altman; Johannes B Reitsma; John P A Ioannidis; Petra Macaskill; Ewout W Steyerberg; Andrew J Vickers; David F Ransohoff; Gary S Collins Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alex Zwanenburg; Stefan Leger; Linda Agolli; Karoline Pilz; Esther G C Troost; Christian Richter; Steffen Löck Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: María Rodríguez; Daniel Ajona; Luis M Seijo; Julián Sanz; Karmele Valencia; Jesús Corral; Miguel Mesa-Guzmán; Rubén Pío; Alfonso Calvo; María D Lozano; Javier J Zulueta; Luis M Montuenga Journal: Transl Lung Cancer Res Date: 2021-02
Authors: José Marcio Luna; Andrew R Barsky; Russell T Shinohara; Leonid Roshkovan; Michelle Hershman; Alexandra D Dreyfuss; Hannah Horng; Carolyn Lou; Peter B Noël; Keith A Cengel; Sharyn Katz; Eric S Diffenderfer; Despina Kontos Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 6.639