Fabien Maldonado1,2, Cyril Varghese3,2, Srinivasan Rajagopalan4,2, Fenghai Duan5, Aneri B Balar1, Dhairya A Lakhani1, Sanja L Antic1, Pierre P Massion1,6, Tucker F Johnson7, Ronald A Karwoski4, Richard A Robb4, Brian J Bartholmai7, Tobias Peikert8. 1. Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. These authors contributed equally to this work. 3. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Dept of Physiology and Biomechanical Engineering, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Pulmonary Section, Medical Service, Tennessee Valley Healthcare Systems, Nashville Campus, Nashville, TN, USA. 6. Dept of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 7. Dept of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA peikert.tobias@mayo.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening and the ever-increasing use of cross-sectional imaging are resulting in the identification of many screen- and incidentally detected indeterminate pulmonary nodules. While the management of nodules with low or high pre-test probability of malignancy is relatively straightforward, those with intermediate pre-test probability commonly require advanced imaging or biopsy. Noninvasive risk stratification tools are highly desirable. METHODS: We previously developed the BRODERS classifier (Benign versus aggRessive nODule Evaluation using Radiomic Stratification), a conventional predictive radiomic model based on eight imaging features capturing nodule location, shape, size, texture and surface characteristics. Herein we report its external validation using a dataset of incidentally identified lung nodules (Vanderbilt University Lung Nodule Registry) in comparison to the Brock model. Area under the curve (AUC), as well as sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: For the entire Vanderbilt validation set (n=170, 54% malignant), the AUC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.92) for the Brock model and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94) for the BRODERS model. Using the optimal cut-off determined by Youden's index, the sensitivity was 92.3%, the specificity was 62.0%, the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were 73.7% and 87.5%, respectively. For nodules with intermediate pre-test probability of malignancy, Brock score of 5-65% (n=97), the sensitivity and specificity were 94% and 46%, respectively, the PPV was 78.4% and the NPV was 79.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The BRODERS radiomic predictive model performs well on an independent dataset and may facilitate the management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules.
INTRODUCTION: Implementation of low-dose chest computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening and the ever-increasing use of cross-sectional imaging are resulting in the identification of many screen- and incidentally detected indeterminate pulmonary nodules. While the management of nodules with low or high pre-test probability of malignancy is relatively straightforward, those with intermediate pre-test probability commonly require advanced imaging or biopsy. Noninvasive risk stratification tools are highly desirable. METHODS: We previously developed the BRODERS classifier (Benign versus aggRessive nODule Evaluation using Radiomic Stratification), a conventional predictive radiomic model based on eight imaging features capturing nodule location, shape, size, texture and surface characteristics. Herein we report its external validation using a dataset of incidentally identified lung nodules (Vanderbilt University Lung Nodule Registry) in comparison to the Brock model. Area under the curve (AUC), as well as sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: For the entire Vanderbilt validation set (n=170, 54% malignant), the AUC was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81-0.92) for the Brock model and 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94) for the BRODERS model. Using the optimal cut-off determined by Youden's index, the sensitivity was 92.3%, the specificity was 62.0%, the positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were 73.7% and 87.5%, respectively. For nodules with intermediate pre-test probability of malignancy, Brock score of 5-65% (n=97), the sensitivity and specificity were 94% and 46%, respectively, the PPV was 78.4% and the NPV was 79.2%. CONCLUSIONS: The BRODERS radiomic predictive model performs well on an independent dataset and may facilitate the management of indeterminate pulmonary nodules.
Authors: Daria Manos; Jean M Seely; Jana Taylor; Joy Borgaonkar; Heidi C Roberts; John R Mayo Journal: Can Assoc Radiol J Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.248
Authors: Heber MacMahon; David P Naidich; Jin Mo Goo; Kyung Soo Lee; Ann N C Leung; John R Mayo; Atul C Mehta; Yoshiharu Ohno; Charles A Powell; Mathias Prokop; Geoffrey D Rubin; Cornelia M Schaefer-Prokop; William D Travis; Paul E Van Schil; Alexander A Bankier Journal: Radiology Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 11.105
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: Samuel Hawkins; Hua Wang; Ying Liu; Alberto Garcia; Olya Stringfield; Henry Krewer; Qian Li; Dmitry Cherezov; Robert A Gatenby; Yoganand Balagurunathan; Dmitry Goldgof; Matthew B Schabath; Lawrence Hall; Robert J Gillies Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Erica C Nakajima; Michael P Frankland; Tucker F Johnson; Sanja L Antic; Heidi Chen; Sheau-Chiann Chen; Ronald A Karwoski; Ronald Walker; Bennett A Landman; Ryan D Clay; Brian J Bartholmai; Srinivasan Rajagopalan; Tobias Peikert; Pierre P Massion; Fabien Maldonado Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Michael N Kammer; Dianna J Rowe; Stephen A Deppen; Eric L Grogan; Alexander M Kaizer; Anna E Barón; Fabien Maldonado Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Anne-Noëlle Frix; François Cousin; Turkey Refaee; Fabio Bottari; Akshayaa Vaidyanathan; Colin Desir; Wim Vos; Sean Walsh; Mariaelena Occhipinti; Pierre Lovinfosse; Ralph T H Leijenaar; Roland Hustinx; Paul Meunier; Renaud Louis; Philippe Lambin; Julien Guiot Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Daniel Ajona; Ana Remirez; Cristina Sainz; Cristina Bertolo; Alvaro Gonzalez; Nerea Varo; María D Lozano; Javier J Zulueta; Miguel Mesa-Guzman; Ana C Martin; Rosa Perez-Palacios; Jose Luis Perez-Gracia; Pierre P Massion; Luis M Montuenga; Ruben Pio Journal: Transl Res Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 7.012