Cargando…
Differentiating malignant pleural mesothelioma and metastatic pleural disease based on a machine learning model with primary CT signs: A multicentre study
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: It is still a challenge to make confirming diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), especially differentiating from metastatic pleural disease (MPD). The aim of this study was to develop a model to distinguish MPM with MPD based on primary CT signs. MATERIALS AND...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9647442/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36387542 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11383 |
Sumario: | RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: It is still a challenge to make confirming diagnosis of malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), especially differentiating from metastatic pleural disease (MPD). The aim of this study was to develop a model to distinguish MPM with MPD based on primary CT signs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively recruited 150 MPM patients and 147 MPD patients from two centers and assigned them to training (115 MPM patients and 113 MPD patients) and testing (35 MPM patients and 34 MPD patients) cohorts. The images were analyzed for pleural thickening, hydrothorax, lymphadenopathy, thoracic volume and calcified pleural plaque (CPP). The selected clinical characteristics and primary CT signs comprised the model by multivariate logistic regression in the training cohort. Then the model was tested on the external testing cohort. ROC curve and F1 score were used to validate the capability of the model in both two cohorts. RESULTS: There were significant differences between two groups: (1) carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA); (2) nodular and mass pleural thickening; (3) the enhancement of pleura; (4) focal, diffuse and circumferential pleural thickening; (5) the thickest pleura; (6) thickening of diaphragmatic pleura; (7) multiple nodules and effusion of interlobar pleura; (8) hilar LN and ring enhancement of LN; (9) punctate and stipe CPP. The AUC and F1 score of the model were 0.970 and 0.857 in the training cohort, 0.955 and 0.818 in the testing cohort. CONCLUSION: The model holds promise for use as a diagnostic tool to distinguish MPM from MPD. |
---|