| Literature DB >> 35610588 |
Jun-Wei Gong1, Zhu Zhang2, Tian-You Luo1, Xing-Tao Huang3, Chao-Nan Zhu4, Jun-Wei Lv4, Qi Li5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Only few studies have focused on differentiating focal pneumonia-like lung cancer (F-PLC) from focal pulmonary inflammatory lesion (F-PIL). This exploratory study aimed to evaluate the clinical value of a combined model incorporating computed tomography (CT)-based radiomics signatures, clinical factors, and CT morphological features for distinguishing F-PLC and F-PIL.Entities:
Keywords: Computed tomography; Pneumonia-like lung cancer; Pulmonary inflammation; Radiomics
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35610588 PMCID: PMC9131551 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-022-00822-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 2.795
Fig. 1Flow chart of patient selection
Fig. 2Flow chart of radiomics implementation in this study
Fig. 3A 68-year-old woman with invasive adenocarcinoma. A–C Air bronchogram was observed in the lung window (red arrow). D, E The uneven enhancement of the lesion in the largest layer was found in the mediastinal window. F Photomicrograph (hematoxylin and eosin staining, × 200) confirming invasive adenocarcinoma with an acinar-predominant pattern
Fig. 4A 53-year-old woman with inflammatory pseudotumor. A–C Pleural attachment was observed in the lung window (red arrow). D, E Lesion necrosis in the largest layer was found in the mediastinal window (blue arrow). F Photomicrograph (hematoxylin and eosin staining, × 100) confirming inflammatory pseudotumor
Clinical and CT morphological features between the F-PLC and F-PIL groups
| Characteristics | F-PLC group (n = 209) | F-PIL group (n = 137) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | < 0.001a | ||
| Median ± interquartile range | 64 ± 12 | 55 ± 16 | |
| Gender | < 0.001b | ||
| Male | 100 (47.85%) | 93 (67.88%) | |
| Female | 109 (52.15%) | 44 (32.12%) | |
| Smoking history | 0.024b | ||
| Smokers | 84 (40.19%) | 72 (52.55%) | |
| Non-smokers | 125 (59.81%) | 65 (47.45%) | |
| Respiratory symptomsd | < 0.001b | ||
| With symptoms | 126 (60.29%) | 113 (82.48%) | |
| Without symptoms | 83 (39.71%) | 24 (17.52%) | |
| Lesion size (mm) | 0.067c | ||
| Mean ± standard deviation | 43.17 ± 18.47 | 46.75 ± 16.57 | |
| Margin | 0.302b | ||
| Well-defined | 138 (66.03%) | 83 (60.58%) | |
| Ill-defined | 71 (33.97%) | 54 (39.42%) | |
| Spiculation | 14 (6.70%) | 9 (6.57%) | 0.962b |
| Air bronchogram | 59 (28.23%) | 19 (13.87%) | 0.002b |
| Necrosis | 17 (8.13%) | 61 (44.53%) | < 0.001b |
| Calcification | 13 (6.22%) | 15 (10.95%) | 0.115b |
| Lymphadenopathy | 66 (31.58%) | 35 (25.55%) | 0.227b |
| Pleural attachment | 103 (49.28%) | 118 (86.13%) | < 0.001b |
| Pleural effusion | 13 (6.22%) | 6 (4.38%) | 0.462b |
CT computed tomography, F-PLC focal pneumonia-like lung cancer, F-PIL focal pulmonary inflammatory lesion
aMann–Whitney U test
bChi-square test
cTwo-independent-samples Student’s t-test
dRespiratory symptoms including fever, cough, sputum, blood in sputum, hemoptysis, and chest pain
Performance of the clinical, radiomics, and combined models
| Group | AUC (95% CI) | Cut-off | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training cohort (n = 242) | |||||
| Clinical model | 0.838 (0.788–0.889) | 0.626 | 0.785 | 0.801 | 0.760 |
| Radiomics model | 0.804 (0.75–0.858) | 0.526 | 0.740 | 0.733 | 0.750 |
| Combined model | 0.915 (0.88–0.95) | 0.639 | 0.847 | 0.815 | 0.896 |
| Internal validation cohort (n = 104) | |||||
| Clinical model | 0.819 (0.738–0.901) | 0.740 | 0.731 | 0.603 | 0.902 |
| Radiomics model | 0.877 (0.812–0.942) | 0.525 | 0.833 | 0.790 | 0.900 |
| Combined model | 0.899 (0.839–0.96) | 0.653 | 0.833 | 0.758 | 0.950 |
| External validation cohort (n = 50) | |||||
| Clinical model | 0.717 (0.562–0.871) | 0.439 | 0.720 | 0.852 | 0.609 |
| Radiomics model | 0.734 (0.59–0.879) | 0.364 | 0.720 | 0.704 | 0.739 |
| Combined model | 0.805 (0.681–0.929) | 0.283 | 0.760 | 0.889 | 0.609 |
AUC area under the ROC curve, CI confidence interval
Fig. 5The receiver operating characteristic curve analyses in the training cohort (A), internal validation cohort (B), and external validation cohort (C)