| Literature DB >> 36081053 |
Gihyeon Kim1, Sehwa Moon2, Jang-Hwan Choi2,3.
Abstract
Due to high recurrence rates in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), medical professionals need extremely accurate diagnostic methods to prevent bleak prognoses. However, even the most commonly used diagnostic method, the TNM staging system, which describes the tumor-size, nodal-involvement, and presence of metastasis, is often inaccurate in predicting NSCLC recurrence. These limitations make it difficult for clinicians to tailor treatments to individual patients. Here, we propose a novel approach, which applies deep learning to an ensemble-based method that exploits patient-derived, multi-modal data. This will aid clinicians in successfully identifying patients at high risk of recurrence and improve treatment planning.Entities:
Keywords: cancer recurrence; clinical feature; deep learning-based radiomics; handcrafted radiomics; non-small cell lung cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081053 PMCID: PMC9459700 DOI: 10.3390/s22176594
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Demographic characteristics.
| Characteristics | Number of Patients (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Institution | ||
| VHS Medical Center | 224 | (68.7%) |
| TCIA (R01) | 102 | (31.3%) |
| Age (70.92 ± 7.8) | ||
| Age < 60 | 17 | (5.2%) |
| Age ≥ 60 | 309 | (94.8%) |
| Histology | ||
| Adenocarcinoma | 167 | (51.2%) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 159 | (48.8%) |
| T stage | ||
| Tis, T1 | 146 | (44.8%) |
| T2 | 149 | (45.7%) |
| T3, T4 | 31 | (9.5%) |
| N stage | ||
| N0 | 210 | (64.4%) |
| N1 | 62 | (19.0%) |
| N2 | 54 | (16.6%) |
| Recurrence | ||
| Recurred | 193 | (59.2%) |
| Not recurred | 133 | (40.8%) |
Figure 1CT image preprocessing pipeline.
Clinical variable used in the first neural network model.
| Clinical Features |
|---|
| LUAD/LUSC, Age, Overall stage, T stage (T1, T2, T3), N stage (N0, N1, N2), |
| Pathology-visceral pleural (+/−), Pathology-lymphovascular invasion (+/−) |
Handcrafted radiomic features used in the second neural network model.
| Handcrafted Radiomic Features by Category | |
|---|---|
| First Order | |
| Shape | 5 |
| Second order (texture features) | |
| gray level co-occurrence (GLCM) | 4 |
| gray level run-length (GLRLM) | 3 |
| gray level size zone (GLSZM) | 2 |
| gray level dependence matrix (GLDM) | 2 |
| neighborhood gray tone difference matrix (NGTDM) | 1 |
| High order | 140 |
Figure 2Flow chart of the proposed algorithm.
Figure 3DLR convolutional neural network architectur.
Mean and standard deviation values of the 5-fold cross validation in terms of F1 score, precision, recall and accuracy. The first three rows reported the implementation results of other competitive methods using each of our dataset. Type of machine learning model was recorded if the model of the row was ensembled. The number of trainable parameters is displayed in thousands in the rightmost column. The models that shows significant difference with the TN stage (baseline) for all evaluation metrics are marked with an asterisk (*).
| F1 Score | Precision | Recall | Accuracy | Model | Trainable | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical (David Cox) [ | 68.11 (±2.4) | 56.51 (±1.4) | 85.84 (±5.5) | 52.90 (±2.5) | Cox PH | - |
| HCR (Wen Yu et al.) [ | 72.19 (±3.4) | 63.78 (±2.1) | 83.23 (±5.5) | 62.44 (±3.8) | RSF | - |
| DLR (André Diamant et al.) [ | 74.55 (±5.4) | 69.12 (±6.3) | 81.12 (±5.2) | 67.35 (±7.1) | CNN | 916 K |
| TN stage (baseline) | 65.67 (±5.1) | 70.09 (±8.0) | 63.81 (±10.6) | 61.54 (±3.8) | NN | 1 K |
| Clinical | 73.54 (±2.4) | 68.99 (±5.1) | 79.07 (±2.2) | 66.46 (±3.8) | NN1 | 1 K |
| HCR | 76.61 (±4.7) | 73.07 (±5.2) | 80.61 (±4.7) | 71.08 (±5.7) | NN2 | 10 K |
| DLR | 76.28 (±4.9) | 70.11 (±3.1) | 84.80 (±11.2) | 69.54 (±4.2) | CNN | 1046 K |
| Clinical & HCR * | 77.58 (±5.0) | 75.29 (±4.1) | 80.08 (±6.4) | 72.92 (±5.6) | QDA | 11 K |
| Clinical & DLR * | 76.86 (±4.7) | 71.03 (±3.7) | 83.75 (±6.1) | 70.46 (±5.6) | LR | 1047 K |
| HCR & DLR * | 77.65 (±5.0) | 73.70 (±4.5) | 82.19 (±6.6) | 72.31 (±5.9) | LR | 1056 K |
| Clinical & HCR & DLR * | 77.79 (±5.3) | 75.71 (±4.8) | 80.08 (±6.4) | 73.23 (±6.0) | LDA | 1057 K |
Figure 4The result figures of ROC curve with AUC value. The highest average AUC value was recorded in the proposed model (ensemble), followed by HCR, Clinical, DLR and TN stage.
Figure 5The result figures of Kaplan–Meier curve. The proposed ensembled model and HCR neural network model showed meaningful results (p < 0.05), while others did not in the log-rank test.