Cargando…
Radiomic signature based on CT imaging to distinguish invasive adenocarcinoma from minimally invasive adenocarcinoma in pure ground-glass nodules with pleural contact
BACKGROUND: Pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs) with pleural contact (P-pGGNs) comprise not only invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC), but also minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA). Radiomics recognizes complex patterns in imaging data by extracting high-throughput features of intra-tumor heterogeneity in...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7788838/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33407884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40644-020-00376-1 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs) with pleural contact (P-pGGNs) comprise not only invasive adenocarcinoma (IAC), but also minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA). Radiomics recognizes complex patterns in imaging data by extracting high-throughput features of intra-tumor heterogeneity in a non-invasive manner. In this study, we sought to develop and validate a radiomics signature to identify IAC and MIA presented as P-pGGNs. METHODS: In total, 100 patients with P-pGGNs (69 training samples and 31 testing samples) were retrospectively enrolled from December 2012 to May 2018. Imaging and clinical findings were also analyzed. In total, 106 radiomics features were extracted from the 3D region of interest (ROI) using computed tomography (CT) imaging. Univariate analyses were used to identify independent risk factors for IAC. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method with 10-fold cross-validation was used to generate predictive features to build a radiomics signature. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves and calibration curves were used to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the radiomics signature. Decision curve analyses (DCA) were also conducted to evaluate whether the radiomics signature was sufficiently robust for clinical practice. RESULTS: Univariate analysis showed significant differences between MIA (N = 47) and IAC (N = 53) groups in terms of patient age, lobulation signs, spiculate margins, tumor size, CT values and relative CT values (all P < 0.05). ROC curve analysis showed, when MIA was identified from IAC, that the critical value of tumor length diameter (TLD) was1.39 cm and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.724 (sensitivity = 0.792, specificity = 0.553). The critical CT value on the largest axial plane (CT-LAP) was − 597.45 HU, and the AUC was 0.666 (sensitivity = 0.698, specificity= 0.638). The radiomics signature consisted of seven features and exhibited a good discriminative performance between IAC and MIA, with an AUC of 0.892 (sensitivity = 0.811, specificity 0.719), and 0.862 (sensitivity = 0.625, specificity = 0.800) in training and testing samples, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our radiomics signature exhibited good discriminative performance in differentiating IAC from MIA in P-pGGNs, and may offer a crucial reference point for follow-up and selective surgical management. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40644-020-00376-1. |
---|