Peng Huang1,2,3, Cheng T Lin4,3, Yuliang Li5, Martin C Tammemagi6, Malcolm V Brock7, Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra8, Yanxun Xu5, Ping Hu9, John R Mayo10, Heidi Schmidt11, Michel Gingras12, Sergio Pasian12, Lori Stewart13, Scott Tsai13, Jean M Seely14, Daria Manos15, Paul Burrowes16, Rick Bhatia17, Ming-Sound Tsao11, Stephen Lam18. 1. Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Co-first authors. 4. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 5. Department of Applied Mathematics & Statistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 6. Department of Community Health Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada. 7. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 8. British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 9. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Canada. 10. University of British Columbia and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 11. University Health Network-Princess Margaret Cancer Centre and Toronto General Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 12. Institut universitaire de cardiologie et, de pneumologie de Québec, Canada. 13. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Juravinski Hospital, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 14. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 15. Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. 16. University of Calgary, Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 17. Memorial University, Newfoundland, Canada. 18. University of British Columbia-British Columbia Cancer Agency and Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
Background: Current lung cancer screening guidelines use mean diameter, volume or density of the largest lung nodule in the prior computed tomography (CT) or appearance of new nodule to determine the timing of the next CT. We aimed at developing a more accurate screening protocol by estimating the 3-year lung cancer risk after two screening CTs using deep machine learning (ML) of radiologist CT reading and other universally available clinical information. Methods: A deep machine learning (ML) algorithm was developed from 25,097 participants who had received at least two CT screenings up to two years apart in the National Lung Screening Trial. Double-blinded validation was performed using 2,294 participants from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan). Performance of ML score to inform lung cancer incidence was compared with Lung-RADS and volume doubling time using time-dependent ROC analysis. Exploratory analysis was performed to identify individuals with aggressive cancers and higher mortality rates. Findings: In the PanCan validation cohort, ML showed excellent discrimination with a 1-, 2- and 3-year time-dependent AUC values for cancer diagnosis of 0·968±0·013, 0·946±0·013 and 0·899±0·017. Although high ML score cohort included only 10% of the PanCan sample, it identified 94%, 85%, and 71% of incident and interval lung cancers diagnosed within 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, after the second screening CT. Furthermore, individuals with high ML score had significantly higher mortality rates (HR=16·07, p<0·001) compared to those with lower risk. Interpretation: ML tool that recognizes patterns in both temporal and spatial changes as well as synergy among changes in nodule and non-nodule features may be used to accurately guide clinical management after the next scheduled repeat screening CT.
Background: Current lung cancer screening guidelines use mean diameter, volume or density of the largest lung nodule in the prior computed tomography (CT) or appearance of new nodule to determine the timing of the next CT. We aimed at developing a more accurate screening protocol by estimating the 3-year lung cancer risk after two screening CTs using deep machine learning (ML) of radiologist CT reading and other universally available clinical information. Methods: A deep machine learning (ML) algorithm was developed from 25,097 participants who had received at least two CT screenings up to two years apart in the National Lung Screening Trial. Double-blinded validation was performed using 2,294 participants from the Pan-Canadian Early Detection of Lung Cancer Study (PanCan). Performance of ML score to inform lung cancer incidence was compared with Lung-RADS and volume doubling time using time-dependent ROC analysis. Exploratory analysis was performed to identify individuals with aggressive cancers and higher mortality rates. Findings: In the PanCan validation cohort, ML showed excellent discrimination with a 1-, 2- and 3-year time-dependent AUC values for cancer diagnosis of 0·968±0·013, 0·946±0·013 and 0·899±0·017. Although high ML score cohort included only 10% of the PanCan sample, it identified 94%, 85%, and 71% of incident and interval lung cancers diagnosed within 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively, after the second screening CT. Furthermore, individuals with high ML score had significantly higher mortality rates (HR=16·07, p<0·001) compared to those with lower risk. Interpretation: ML tool that recognizes patterns in both temporal and spatial changes as well as synergy among changes in nodule and non-nodule features may be used to accurately guide clinical management after the next scheduled repeat screening CT.
Entities:
Keywords:
Lung cancer; Lung-RADS; deep machine learning; ensemble learning; screening; survival analysis; time-dependent ROC; volume doubling time
Authors: M E J Callister; D R Baldwin; A R Akram; S Barnard; P Cane; J Draffan; K Franks; F Gleeson; R Graham; P Malhotra; M Prokop; K Rodger; M Subesinghe; D Waller; I Woolhouse Journal: Thorax Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Geert Litjens; Thijs Kooi; Babak Ehteshami Bejnordi; Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio; Francesco Ciompi; Mohsen Ghafoorian; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Bram van Ginneken; Clara I Sánchez Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 8.545
Authors: Denise R Aberle; Amanda M Adams; Christine D Berg; William C Black; Jonathan D Clapp; Richard M Fagerstrom; Ilana F Gareen; Constantine Gatsonis; Pamela M Marcus; JoRean D Sicks Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Balaji Ganeshan; Sandra Abaleke; Rupert C D Young; Christopher R Chatwin; Kenneth A Miles Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Martin C Tammemagi; Heidi Schmidt; Simon Martel; Annette McWilliams; John R Goffin; Michael R Johnston; Garth Nicholas; Alain Tremblay; Rick Bhatia; Geoffrey Liu; Kam Soghrati; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; David M Hwang; Francis Laberge; Michel Gingras; Sergio Pasian; Christian Couture; John R Mayo; Paola V Nasute Fauerbach; Sukhinder Atkar-Khattra; Stuart J Peacock; Sonya Cressman; Diana Ionescu; John C English; Richard J Finley; John Yee; Serge Puksa; Lori Stewart; Scott Tsai; Ehsan Haider; Colm Boylan; Jean-Claude Cutz; Daria Manos; Zhaolin Xu; Glenwood D Goss; Jean M Seely; Kayvan Amjadi; Harmanjatinder S Sekhon; Paul Burrowes; Paul MacEachern; Stefan Urbanski; Don D Sin; Wan C Tan; Natasha B Leighl; Frances A Shepherd; William K Evans; Ming-Sound Tsao; Stephen Lam Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Francesco Ciompi; Kaman Chung; Sarah J van Riel; Arnaud Arindra Adiyoso Setio; Paul K Gerke; Colin Jacobs; Ernst Th Scholten; Cornelia Schaefer-Prokop; Mathilde M W Wille; Alfonso Marchianò; Ugo Pastorino; Mathias Prokop; Bram van Ginneken Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-04-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Dmitry Cherezov; Samuel H Hawkins; Dmitry B Goldgof; Lawrence O Hall; Ying Liu; Qian Li; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Robert J Gillies; Matthew B Schabath Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Matthijs Oudkerk; ShiYuan Liu; Marjolein A Heuvelmans; Joan E Walter; John K Field Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-10-12 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Riqiang Gao; Yucheng Tang; Mirza S Khan; Kaiwen Xu; Alexis B Paulson; Shelbi Sullivan; Yuankai Huo; Stephen Deppen; Pierre P Massion; Kim L Sandler; Bennett A Landman Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2021-10-13
Authors: Colin Jacobs; Arnaud A A Setio; Ernst T Scholten; Paul K Gerke; Haimasree Bhattacharya; Firdaus A M Hoesein; Monique Brink; Erik Ranschaert; Pim A de Jong; Mario Silva; Bram Geurts; Kaman Chung; Steven Schalekamp; Joke Meersschaert; Anand Devaraj; Paul F Pinsky; Stephen C Lam; Bram van Ginneken; Keyvan Farahani Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2021-10-27
Authors: Susan Fernandes; Gareth Williams; Elvira Williams; Katjana Ehrlich; James Stone; Neil Finlayson; Mark Bradley; Robert R Thomson; Ahsan R Akram; Kevin Dhaliwal Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Pierre P Massion; Sanja Antic; Sarim Ather; Carlos Arteta; Jan Brabec; Heidi Chen; Jerome Declerck; David Dufek; William Hickes; Timor Kadir; Jonas Kunst; Bennett A Landman; Reginald F Munden; Petr Novotny; Heiko Peschl; Lyndsey C Pickup; Catarina Santos; Gary T Smith; Ambika Talwar; Fergus Gleeson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 21.405