| Literature DB >> 32767522 |
Xing Dong1, Xu Dan1, Ao Yawen1, Xu Haibo1, Li Huan1, Tu Mengqi1, Chen Linglong1, Ruan Zhao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia has been confirmed as a poor prognostic indicator of lung cancer. However, the lack of abdominal computed tomography (CT) hindered the application to assess the status of sarcopenia. The purpose of this study was to assess the ability of chest CT radiomics combined with machine learning classifiers to identify sarcopenia in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; lightGBM; machine learning; non-small cell lung cancer; radiomics
Year: 2020 PMID: 32767522 PMCID: PMC7471037 DOI: 10.1111/1759-7714.13598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Thorac Cancer ISSN: 1759-7706 Impact factor: 3.500
Figure 1The skeletal muscle CSA measurement at the L3 level with NIH ImageJ software. (a) The outer area for skeletal muscle mass; (b) inner area for skeletal muscle mass; and (c) area within the vertebral body. The skeletal muscle CSA was calculated as the formula: (outer area − inner area − vertebral body area)/100. CSA, cross‐sectional area. L3, third lumbar.
Figure 2Skeletal muscle semi‐automated segmentation utilizing 3D‐Slicer Software at 12th thoracic vertebra level.
Figure 3Heatmaps of the radiomic and clinical features for 99 patients.
Clinical characteristics of patients with NSCLC and sarcopenia
| Training cohort | Test cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( |
| |
| Age (years) | |||
| Median (range) | 60.0 (40.0–86.0) | 64.5 (39.0–83.0) |
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | |||
| Median (range) | 22.55 (16.33–29.76) | 22.54 (18.23–31.45) | 0.756 |
| Gender ( | |||
| Female | 30 (43.5%) | 6 (20.0%) |
|
| Male | 39 (56.5%) | 24 (80.0%) | |
| Sarcopenia ( | |||
| Sarcopenia | 28 (40.6%) | 12 (40.0%) | 0.957 |
| Nonsarcopenia | 41 (59.4%) | 18 (60.0%) | |
| Histological subtype ( | |||
| Adenocarcinoma | 56 (81.2%) | 23 (76.7%) | |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 10 (14.5%) | 6 (20.0%) | 0.276 |
| Mixed | 3 (4.3%) | Two‐sided Pr ≤ | |
| Sarcomatoid carcinoma | 1 (3.3%) | ||
| TNM ( | |||
| IIIb | 10 (14.5%) | 4 (13.3%) | |
| IIIc | 5 (7.2%) | 2 (6.7%) | 0.983 |
| IVa | 16 (23.2%) | 8 (26.7%) | Two‐sided Pr ≤ |
| IVb | 38 (55.1%) | 16 (53.3%) | |
Mann‐Whitney U test.
Chi‐square test.
Fisher's exact test.
Figure 4Boxplot of intra‐ and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of four radiomic feature categories.
Figure 5The selected key features and their importance score after feature selection.
The performance of lightGBM classifier in identifying sarcopenia
| Base model | Optimized model | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training set | Validation set | Training set | Validation set | |
| Specificity | 0.927 | 0.889 | 0.951 | 0.944 |
| Sensitivity | 0.929 | 0.750 | 0.929 | 0.833 |
| Accuracy | 0.928 | 0.833 | 0.942 | 0.900 |
| Precision | 0.897 | 0.818 | 0.929 | 0.909 |
| F1‐score | 0.912 | 0.783 | 0.929 | 0.870 |
| AUC | 0.928 | 0.819 | 0.940 | 0.889 |
| MCC | 0.851 | 0.649 | 0.880 | 0.791 |
| Cohen's kappa | 0.851 | 0.648 | 0.880 | 0.789 |
MCC, Matthew's correlation coefficient.
Figure 6The performance of lightGBM in identifying sarcopenia. Radar plot illustrations the performance of base and optimal lightGBM model in (a) training and (b) validation set set; (c) ROC curves of the base and optimal lightGBM classifier in validation set; Confusion matrix with in validation set with (d) base; and (e) optimal lightGBM classifier.