| Literature DB >> 35047410 |
Feiyang Zhong1, Zhenxing Liu2, Wenting An1, Binchen Wang1, Hanfei Zhang1, Yumin Liu2, Meiyan Liao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the value of quantitative radiomics features in discriminating second primary lung cancers (SPLCs) from pulmonary metastases (PMs).Entities:
Keywords: clinical-radiographic factor; lung cancer; pulmonary metastases; radiomics; second primary lung cancers
Year: 2022 PMID: 35047410 PMCID: PMC8761898 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.801213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
The clinical and radiographic factors of patients in SPLC† and PM§ Groups.
| Variables | SPLC Group (N=97) | PM Group (N=155) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patient (%) | No. of patient (%) | ||
| Sex | 0.029 | ||
| Male | 62 (63.9) | 76 (49.0) | |
| Female | 35 (36.1) | 79 (51.0) | |
| Age (years) | <0.001 | ||
| (Median [IQR]) | 64.00 [59.00, 68.00] | 59.00 [52.00, 65.00] | |
| History of smoking | 0.003 | ||
| Yes | 54 (55.7) | 116 (74.8) | |
| No | 43 (44.3) | 39 (25.2) | |
| Family history of malignancy (%) | 0.43 | ||
| Yes | 88 (90.7) | 146 (94.2) | |
| No | 9 (9.3) | 9 (5.8) | |
| Recurrence status of the initial tumor | 0.085 | ||
| Yes | 97 (100.0) | 149 (96.1) | |
| No | 0 (0.0) | 6 (3.9) | |
| Maximal lesion size (mm) | <0.001 | ||
| (Median [IQR]) | 30.00 [20.00, 49.00] | 19.00 [13.00, 28.50] | |
| NSE | 0.003 | ||
| Normal | 74 (76.3) | 141 (91.0) | |
| Abnormal | 23 (23.7) | 14 (9.0) | |
| CEA | 0.002 | ||
| Normal | 59 (60.8) | 123 (79.4) | |
| Abnormal | 38 (39.2) | 32 (20.6) | |
| CA125 | 0.034 | ||
| Normal | 69 (71.1) | 129 (83.2) | |
| Abnormal | 28 (28.9) | 26 (16.8) | |
| The distribution of lesions | <0.001 | ||
| Single | 80 (82.5) | 72 (46.5) | |
| Multiple | 17 (17.5) | 83 (53.5) | |
| Central or peripheral type | <0.001 | ||
| Peripheral | 75 (77.3) | 149 (96.1) | |
| Central | 22 (22.7) | 6 (3.9) | |
| Density | 0.546 | ||
| Homogeneous | 79 (81.4) | 120 (77.4) | |
| Heterogeneous | 18 (18.6) | 35 (22.6) | |
| Air bronchogram | <0.001 | ||
| Absent | 47 (48.5) | 134 (86.5) | |
| Present | 50 (51.5) | 21 (13.5) | |
| Bubble lucency | 0.283 | ||
| Absent | 81 (83.5) | 138 (89.0) | |
| Present | 16 (16.5) | 17 (11.0) | |
| Calcification | 0.001 | ||
| Absent | 79 (81.4) | 147 (94.8) | |
| Present | 18 (18.6) | 8 (5.2) | |
| Vessel convergence sign | <0.001 | ||
| Absent | 62 (63.9) | 137 (88.4) | |
| Present | 35 (36.1) | 18 (11.6) | |
| Margin | 0.003 | ||
| Clear | 79 (81.4) | 146 (94.2) | |
| Unclear | 18 (18.6) | 9 (5.8) | |
| Contour | <0.001 | ||
| Round | 22 (22.7) | 118 (76.1) | |
| Irregular | 75 (77.3) | 37 (23.9) | |
| Lobulation | <0.001 | ||
| Absent | 6 (6.2) | 40 (25.8) | |
| Present | 91 (93.8) | 115 (74.2) | |
| Spiculation | <0.001 | ||
| Absent | 30 (30.9) | 130 (83.9) | |
| Present | 67 (69.1) | 25 (16.1) | |
| Pleural effusion | <0.001 | ||
| Absent | 25 (25.8) | 83 (53.5) | |
| Present | 72 (74.2) | 72 (46.5) | |
| Enlarged mediastinal lymph node | 0.158 | ||
| Absent | 70 (72.2) | 125 (80.6) | |
| Present | 27 (27.8) | 30 (19.4) |
†SPLC indicates second primary lung cancer; §PM, pulmonary metastasis.
Figure 1The result of LASSO model (A) LASSO coefficient profiles of the candidate predictors. (B) The features with nonzero coefficients are shown in the model. (C) The y-axis indicates the selected radiomics features, and the x-axis represents the coefficient of radiomics.
Figure 2The Rad-score of each lesion in the training set (A) and validation set (B).
Figure 3(A) Nomogram for predicting SPLCs and PMs. For each patient, draw a vertical line between the variable value and the corresponding point line, and then assign a score for each variable based on the clinical and imaging characteristics to obtain a total score. The risk of metastasis can be predicted according to the total score. (B) Calibration curve for the nomogram in training cohort. (C) Calibration curve for the nomogram in validation cohort.
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the models based on clinical-radiographic factors (blue), radiomics features alone (red), and comprehensive clinical-radiography-radiomics features (green) in the training set (A) and validation set (B).
Figure 5The DCA showed that in most circumstances, using the comprehensive model to distinguish between SPLCs and PMs would be more clinically beneficial than other models in training cohort (A) and validation cohort (B).