| Literature DB >> 35571081 |
Weicheng Huang1,2, Jingyi Wang3, Haolin Wang1,2, Yuxiang Zhang1,2, Fengjun Zhao1,2, Kang Li1,2, Linzhi Su1,2, Fei Kang3, Xin Cao1,2.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the performance of radiomics and deep learning in predicting EGFR mutation status in patients with lung cancer based on PET/CT images, and tried to explore a model with excellent prediction performance to accurately predict EGFR mutation status in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Method: PET/CT images of 194 NSCLC patients from Xijing Hospital were collected and divided into a training set and a validation set according to the ratio of 7:3. Statistics were made on patients' clinical characteristics, and a large number of features were extracted based on their PET/CT images (4306 radiomics features and 2048 deep learning features per person) with the pyradiomics toolkit and 3D convolutional neural network. Then a radiomics model (RM), a deep learning model (DLM), and a hybrid model (HM) were established. The performance of the three models was compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, calibration curves, and decision curves. In addition, a nomogram based on a deep learning score (DS) and the most significant clinical characteristic was plotted. Result: In the training set composed of 138 patients (64 with EGFR mutation and 74 without EGFR mutation), the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of HM (0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96) was higher than that of RM (0.82, 95% CI: 0.75-0.89) and DLM (0.90, 95% CI: 0.85-0.95). In the validation set composed of 57 patients (32 with EGFR mutation and 25 without EGFR mutation), the AUC of HM (0.85, 95% CI: 0.77-0.93) was also higher than that of RM (0.68, 95% CI: 0.52-0.84) and DLM (0.79, 95% CI: 0.67-0.91). In all, HM achieved better diagnostic performance in predicting EGFR mutation status in NSCLC patients than two other models.Entities:
Keywords: EGFR; PET/CT; deep learning; lung cancer; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35571081 PMCID: PMC9092283 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.898529
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Pharmacol ISSN: 1663-9812 Impact factor: 5.810
FIGURE 1The architecture of 3D convolutional neural network based on PET/CT images. The network was composed of multiple convolution layers and max pooling layers, the number of output channels after each convolution and max pooling was marked above feature maps. Finally, the information from two modes entered the fully connected layer.
FIGURE 2The workflow of this study.
Clinical characteristics for patients in the training set and validation set.
| Characteristic | Training set ( |
| Validation set ( |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EGFR− ( | EGFR+ ( | EGFR− ( | EGFR+ ( | |||
| Age (mean ± SD) | 62.54 ± 11.26 | 58.50 ± 10.48 | 0.057 | 59.33 ± 10.76 | 64.18 ± 11.15 | 0.076 |
| Gender | <0.001 | 0.084 | ||||
| Male | 60 (80.18%) | 28 (43.75%) | 19 (76%) | 16 (50%) | ||
| Female | 14 (18.92%) | 36 (56.25%) | 6 (24%) | 16 (50%) | ||
| Smoking | <0.001 | 0.043 | ||||
| Yes | 57 (77.03%) | 42 (65.62%) | 8 (32%) | 20 (62.50%) | ||
| No | 17 (22.97%) | 22 (34.38%) | 17 (68%) | 12 (37.50%) | ||
| CEA (ng/ml) | 4.57 (2.99,6.52) | 5.97 (3.20,20.44) | 0.343 | 4.60 (3.14,10.35) | 5.13 (2,65,18.28) | 0.871 |
| SUVmax | 8.31 (6.12,12.36) | 10.24 (4.96,14.65) | 0.641 | 9.97 (6.47,14.61) | 9.36 (5.97,13.54) | 0.782 |
SD, standard deviation; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
FIGURE 3Lasso regression was used to select the optical radiomics features (A) and deep learning features (C). (B) and (D) showed lasso coefficients of selected radiomics features and deep learning features respectively.
Auc, specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy for three models in the training set and validation set.
| RM training | RM validation | DLM training | DLM validation | HM training | HM validation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auc (95% CI) | 0.82 (0.75–0.89) | 0.68 (0.52–0.84) | 0.90 (0.85–0.95) | 0.79 (0.67–0.91) | 0.91 (0.86–0.96) | 0.85 (0.77–0.93) |
| Specificity | 0.80 | 0.64 | 0.77 | 0.96 | 0.85 | 0.88 |
| Sensitivity | 0.73 | 0.81 | 0.91 | 0.53 | 0.89 | 0.78 |
| Accuracy | 0.77 | 0.74 | 0.83 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.82 |
FIGURE 4Roc curves of three models in the training set (A) and validation set (B).
FIGURE 5A nomogram based on HM.
FIGURE 6HM’s calibration curves in the training set (A) and validation set (B).
FIGURE 7A decision curve was plotted to show the standardized net benefit of three models.