| Literature DB >> 35429974 |
Minghui Zhu1,2,3, Zhen Yang2, Miaoyu Wang2, Wei Zhao2, Qiang Zhu2, Wenjia Shi2, Hang Yu2, Zhixin Liang2, Liangan Chen4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinically differentiating preinvasive lesions (atypical adenomatous hyperplasia, AAH and adenocarcinoma in situ, AIS) from invasive lesions (minimally invasive adenocarcinomas, MIA and invasive adenocarcinoma, IA) manifesting as ground-glass opacity nodules (GGOs) is difficult due to overlap of morphological features. Hence, the current study was performed to explore the diagnostic efficiency of radiomics in assessing the invasiveness of lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as GGOs.Entities:
Keywords: Computerized tomography; Ground-glass opacity nodules; Invasiveness; Lung adenocarcinoma; Radiomics
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35429974 PMCID: PMC9013452 DOI: 10.1186/s12931-022-02016-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respir Res ISSN: 1465-9921
Demographic, clinical and semantic CT features of patients in the training and validation set
| Characteristic | Training set (n = 712) | p value | Validation set (n = 306) | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Preinvasive lesions (n = 97) | Invasive lesions (n = 615) | Preinvasive lesions (n = 42) | Invasive lesions (n = 264) | |||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 36 (37.1) | 209 (34.0) | 0.547 | 15 (35.7) | 98 (37.1) | 0.861 |
| Female | 61 (62.9) | 406 (66.0) | 27 (64.3) | 166 (62.9) | ||
| Age (years, average ± SD) | 53.5 ± 8.5 | 54.9 ± 9.5 | 0.064 | 52.1 ± 10.9 | 55.1 ± 9.5 | 0.082 |
| Having respiratory symptoms | ||||||
| Yes | 3 (3.1) | 66 (10.7) | 0.015 | 2 (4.8) | 32 (12.1) | 0.159 |
| No | 94 (96.9) | 549 (89.3) | 40 (95.2) | 232 (87.9) | ||
| BMI | 24.1 ± 3.1 | 24.2 ± 3.0 | 0.761 | 23.4 ± 2.5 | 24.4 ± 3.0 | 0.07 |
| Smoking history | ||||||
| Yes | 10 (10.3) | 97 (15.8) | 0.162 | 5 (11.9) | 43 (16.3) | 0.648 |
| No | 87 (89.7) | 518 (84.2) | 37 (88.1) | 221 (83.7) | ||
| Smoking index (pack-year) | 87.6 ± 386.3 | 93.9 ± 283.0 | 0.177 | 100.0 ± 338.0 | 78.4 ± 226.6 | 0.544 |
| Former lung cancer history | ||||||
| Yes | 2 (2.1) | 14 (2.3) | 1.000 | 0 (0) | 2 (0.8) | 1.000 |
| No | 95 (97.9) | 601 (97.7) | 42 (100) | 262 (99.2) | ||
| Former malignancy history except lung cancer | ||||||
| Yes | 4 (4.1) | 33 (5.4) | 0.806 | 0 (0) | 11 (4.2) | 0.372 |
| No | 93 (95.9) | 582 (94.6) | 42 (100) | 253 (95.8) | ||
| Former pulmonary benign disorders | ||||||
| Yes | 2 (2.1) | 31 (5.0) | 0.296 | 1 (2.4) | 7 (2.7) | 1.000 |
| No | 95 (97.9) | 584 (95.0) | 41 (97.6) | 257 (97.3) | ||
| Family history of lung cancer | ||||||
| Yes | 10 (10.3) | 66 (10.7) | 0.900 | 2 (4.8) | 28 (10.6) | 0.399 |
| No | 87 (89.7) | 549 (89.3) | 40 (95.2) | 236 (89.4) | ||
| Family history of malignancy except lung cancer | ||||||
| Yes | 17 (17.5) | 93 (15.1) | 0.543 | 7 (16.7) | 41 (15.5) | 0.851 |
| No | 80 (82.5) | 522 (84.9) | 35 (83.3) | 223 (84.5) | ||
| Abnormal tumor biomarker resultsa | ||||||
| Yes | 6 (6.2) | 99 (16.1) | 0.011 | 5 (11.9) | 31 (11.7) | 0.976 |
| No | 91 (93.8) | 516 (83.9) | 37 (88.1) | 233 (88.3) | ||
| Multiple nodules | ||||||
| Yes | 38 (39.2) | 309 (50.2) | 0.043 | 15 (35.7) | 130 (49.2) | 0.103 |
| No | 59 (60.8) | 306 (49.8) | 27 (64.3) | 134 (50.8) | ||
| Nodule density | ||||||
| pGGO | 81 (83.5) | 374 (60.8) | < 0.001 | 35 (83.3) | 163 (61.7) | 0.007 |
| mGGO | 16 (16.5) | 241 (39.2) | 7 (16.7) | 101 (38.3) | ||
| Border | ||||||
| Unclear | 12 (12.4) | 174 (28.3) | 0.001 | 3 (7.1) | 63 (23.9) | 0.014 |
| Clear | 85 (87.6) | 441 (71.7) | 39 (92.9) | 201 (76.1) | ||
| Lobulation sign | ||||||
| Yes | 10 (10.3) | 199 (32.4) | < 0.001 | 3 (7.1) | 65 (24.6) | 0.009 |
| No | 87 (89.7) | 416 (67.6) | 39 (9.3) | 199 (75.4) | ||
| Spiculation sign | ||||||
| Yes | 6 (6.2) | 104 (16.9) | 0.007 | 1 (2.4) | 35 (13.3) | 0.04 |
| No | 91 (93.8) | 511 (83.1) | 41 (97.6) | 229 (86.7) | ||
| Pleural indentation sign | ||||||
| Yes | 6 (6.2) | 106 (17.2) | 0.005 | 1 (2.4) | 44 (16.7) | 0.01 |
| No | 91 (93.8) | 509 (82.8) | 41 (97.6) | 220 (83.3) | ||
| Bubble sign | ||||||
| Yes | 8 (8.2) | 107 (17.4) | 0.023 | 4 (9.5) | 40 (15.2) | 0.478 |
| No | 89 (91.8) | 508 (82.6) | 38 (90.5) | 224 (84.8) | ||
| Vessel change | ||||||
| Yes | 14 (14.4) | 125 (20.3) | 0.174 | 4 (9.5) | 64 (24.2) | 0.044 |
| No | 83 (85.6) | 490 (79.7) | 38 (90.5) | 200 (75.8) | ||
| Maximum 2D diameter (mm, average ± SD) | 9.2 ± 3.2 | 12.6 ± 5.2 | < 0.001 | 8.9 ± 3.4 | 12.7 ± 5.1 | < 0.001 |
| Location | ||||||
| Left upper lobe | 20 (20.6) | 152 (24.7) | 0.277 | 12 (28.6) | 69 (26.1) | 0.670 |
| Left lower lobe | 21 (21.6) | 91 (14.8) | 7 (16.7) | 34 (12.9) | ||
| Right upper lobe | 39 (40.2) | 236 (38.4) | 16 (38.1) | 103 (39.0) | ||
| Right middle lobe | 2 (2.1) | 33 (5.4) | 3 (7.1) | 12 (4.5) | ||
| Right lower lobe | 15 (15.5) | 103 (16.7) | 4 (9.5) | 46 (17.4) | ||
| Rad-score | 0.9 ± 1.5 | 2.7 ± 1.3 | < 0.001 | 1.1 ± 1.2 | 2.8 ± 1.3 | < 0.001 |
BMI, body mass index; pGGO, pure ground-glass opacity nodule; mGGO, mixed ground-glass opacity nodule
aAn abnormal tumor biomarker result is defined as a higher blood concentration above the normal range of any of the following: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), CA-125 or CYFRA21-1
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study
Fig. 2The segmentation of the regions of interest. A Computerized tomography (CT) image of a ground-glass opacity nodule pathologically confirmed as atypical adenomatous hyperplasia (AAH). B The segmentation of the nodule. Green area indicates the nodule region and yellow area indicates the peri-nodule region. C The constructed 3D model of the nodule in 3D slicer software
Fig. 3Feature selection using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). A Tenfold cross-validation analysis of LASSO was performed and when λ = 0.022, logλ = − 3.817 (the first dotted vertical line), the model had minimum error, and 16 non-zero features were selected. B The coefficient profiles of the 1789 features
Fig. 4The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showing the performance of the nomogram, radiomic model, clinical-semantic model, intra-nodular radiomic model and peri-nodular radiomic model in A training and B validation set. A Delong test showed that the nomogram exhibited better performance comparing to the clinical-semantic model in both training (p = 0.0002) and validation set (p = 0.003). Data in the parentheses referred to the 95% confidence interval of area under the curve (AUC)
Results of multivariate logistic regression of significant features
| Variables | β | OR (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 0.049 | 0.89 | |
| Lobulation | 0.76 | 2.138 (1.029–4.442) | 0.042 |
| Rad-score | 0.976 | 2.653 (2.058–3.422) | < 0.001 |
β, regression coefficient; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval
Fig. 5The nomogram and calibration curve. A The constructed nomogram based on lobulation sign and rad-score. B The calibration curve of the established nomogram. The curve showed that the nomogram had a good agreement between prediction and observation
Fig. 6Decision curve analysis (DCA) of the nomogram and the clinical-semantic model. The DCA curve showed that within the threshold probability ranging from 10 to 90%, using the nomogram added more net benefits than clinical and semantic CT features in differentiating preinvasive lung adenocarcinoma manifesting as ground-glass opacity nodules from invasive ones