Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of prediction models with radiological semantic features and radiomics in lung cancer diagnosis of the pulmonary nodules: a case-control study

  • Chest
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the ability of radiological semantic and quantitative texture features in lung cancer diagnosis of pulmonary nodules.

Materials and methods

A total of N = 121 subjects with confirmed non-small-cell lung cancer were matched with 117 controls based on age and gender. Radiological semantic and quantitative texture features were extracted from CT images with or without contrast enhancement. Three different models were compared using LASSO logistic regression: “CS” using clinical and semantic variables, “T” using texture features, and “CST” using clinical, semantic, and texture variables. For each model, we performed 100 trials of fivefold cross-validation and the average receiver operating curve was accessed. The AUC of the cross-validation study (AUCCV) was calculated together with its 95% confidence interval.

Results

The AUCCV (and 95% confidence interval) for models T, CS, and CST was 0.85 (0.71–0.96), 0.88 (0.77–0.96), and 0.88 (0.77–0.97), respectively. After separating the data into two groups with or without contrast enhancement, the AUC (without cross-validation) of the model T was 0.86 both for images with and without contrast enhancement, suggesting that contrast enhancement did not impact the utility of texture analysis.

Conclusions

The models with semantic and texture features provided cross-validated AUCs of 0.85–0.88 for classification of benign versus cancerous nodules, showing potential in aiding the management of patients.

Key Points

• Pretest probability of cancer can aid and direct the physician in the diagnosis and management of pulmonary nodules in a cost-effective way.

• Semantic features (qualitative features reported by radiologists to characterize lung lesions) and radiomic (e.g., texture) features can be extracted from CT images.

• Input of these variables into a model can generate a pretest likelihood of cancer to aid clinical decision and management of pulmonary nodules.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CI:

Confidence intervals

CT:

X-ray computed tomography

NSCLC:

Non-small cell lung cancer

VM:

The bounding volume maximum length

VOI:

Volume of interest

References

  1. MacMahon H, Naidich DP, Goo JM et al (2017) Guidelines for management of incidental pulmonary nodules detected on CT images: from the Fleischner Society 2017. Radiology 284:228–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Carter SM, Barratt A (2017) What is overdiagnosis and why should we take it seriously in cancer screening? Public Health Res Pract 27:e2731722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Edey AJ, Hansell DM (2009) Incidentally detected small pulmonary nodules on CT. Clin Radiol 64:872–884

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dziedzic R, Rzyman W (2014) Incidentally diagnosed pulmonary nodules: a diagnostic algorithm. Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol 11:397–403

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Gould MK, Ananth L, Barnett PG (2007) A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest 131:383–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Swensen SJ, Silverstein MD, Ilstrup DM, Schleck CD, Edell ES (2008) The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules. Arch Intern Med 157:849–855

  7. McWilliams A, Tammemagi MC, Mayo JR et al (2013) Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. N Engl J Med 369:910–919

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Schultz EM, Sanders GD, Trotter PR et al (2008) Validation of two models to estimate the probability of malignancy in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Thorax 63:335–341

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Ameri A, Malhotra P, Thygesen H et al (2015) Risk of malignancy in pulmonary nodules: a validation study of four prediction models. Lung Cancer 89:27–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Talwar A, Rahman NM, Kadir T, Pickup LC, Gleeson F (2017) A retrospective validation study of three models to estimate the probability of malignancy in patients with small pulmonary nodules from a tertiary oncology follow-up center. Clin Radiol 72:177.e1–177.e8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C et al (2017) Computational radiomics system to decode the radiographic phenotype. Cancer Res 77:e104–e107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huang Y, Liu Z, He L et al (2016) Radiomics signature: a potential biomarker for the prediction of disease-free survival in early-stage (I or II) non—small cell lung cancer. Radiology 281:947–957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coroller TP, Agrawal V, Huynh E et al (2017) Radiomic-based pathological response prediction from primary tumors and lymph nodes in NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 12:467–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coroller TP, Grossmann P, Hou Y et al (2015) CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. Radiother Oncol 114:345–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huang YQ, Liang CH, He L et al (2016) Development and validation of a radiomics nomogram for preoperative prediction of lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 34:2157–2164

  17. Song SH, Park H, Lee G et al (2017) Imaging phenotyping using radiomics to predict micropapillary pattern within lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 12:624–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wilson R, Devaraj A (2017) Radiomics of pulmonary nodules and lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 6:86–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hawkins S, Wang H, Liu Y et al (2016) Predicting malignant nodules from screening CT scans. J Thorac Oncol 11:2120–2128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen CH, Chang CK, Tu CY et al (2018) Radiomic features analysis in computed tomography images of lung nodule classification. PLoS One 13:e0192002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hatt M, Tixier F, Pierce L, Kinahan PE, Le Rest CC, Visvikis D (2016) Characterization of PET/CT images using texture analysis: the past, the present… any future? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44:151–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Soh LK, Tsatsoulis C (1999) Texture analysis of SAR sea ice imagery using gray level co- occurrence matrices. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 37:780–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 58:267–288

  24. Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R (2010) Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw 33:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Liu Y, Wang H, Li Q et al (2018) Radiologic features of small pulmonary nodules and lung cancer risk in the National Lung Screening Trial: a nested case-control study. Radiology 286:298–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Armato SG 3rd, McNitt-Gray MF, Reeves AP et al (2007) The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC): an evaluation of radiologist variability in the identification of lung nodules on CT scans. Acad Radiol 14:1409–1421

  27. Kalpathy-Cramer J, Zhao B, Goldgof D et al (2016) A comparison of lung nodule segmentation algorithms: methods and results from a multi-institutional study. J Digit Imaging 29:476–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Herder GJ, van Tinteren H, Golding RP et al (2005) Clinical prediction model to characterize pulmonary nodules: validation and added value of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Chest 128:2490–2496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. He L, Huang Y, Ma Z, Liang C, Liang C, Liu Z (2016) Effects of contrast-enhancement, reconstruction slice thickness and convolution kernel on the diagnostic performance of radiomics signature in solitary pulmonary nodule. Sci Rep 6:34921

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Fan L, Fang M, Li Z et al (2019) Radiomics signature: a biomarker for the preoperative discrimination of lung invasive adenocarcinoma manifesting as a ground-glass nodule. Eur Radiol 29:889–897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Larue RT, Defraene G, De Ruysscher D, Lambin P, Van Elmpt W (2017) Quantitative radiomics studies for tissue characterization: a review of technology and methodological procedures. Br J Radiol 90:20160665

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY, Schwartz LH, Lu L (2014) Exploring variability in CT characterization of tumors: a preliminary phantom study. Transl Oncol 7:88–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhao B, Tan Y, Tsai WY et al (2016) Reproducibility of radiomics for deciphering tumor phenotype with imaging. Sci Rep 6:23428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lo P, Young S, Kim HJ, Brown MS, McNitt-Gray MF (2016) Variability in CT lung-nodule quantification: effects of dose reduction and reconstruction methods on density and texture based features. Med Phys 43:4854–4865

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lu L, Ehmke RC, Schwartz LH, Zhao B (2016) Assessing agreement between radiomic features computed for multiple CT imaging settings. PLoS One 11:e0166550

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Shafiq-ul-Hassan M, Zhang GG, Latifi K et al (2017) Intrinsic dependencies of CT radiomic features on voxel size and number of gray levels. Med Phys 44:1050–1062

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Mazzone PJ, Silvestri GA, Patel S et al (2018) Screening for lung cancer: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest 153:954–985

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Sherlock G, Eisen M, Brown P, Botstein D (1999) Imputing missing data for gene expression arrays. Stanford University Statistics Department Technical report. URL: http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~hastie/Papers/missing.pdf. Last downloaded 2019-03-01

Download references

Acknowledgments

At the University of Washington Medical Center, we thank Steven R. Bowen, PhD, for helpful suggestions on the project, Nina A. Mayr, MD, and William T. Yuh for providing the access to MIM software and guidance on how to use the software.

Funding

This study has received funding by NIH grants U01CA148131, U01185097, U01186157, P30CA015704, and F32CA200265, as well as National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81471637).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College affiliated to Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Ave, Wuhan, Hubei, 430000, People’s Republic of China

    Wei Wu, Larry A. Pierce, Sudhakar N. J. Pipavath & Liming Xia

  2. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA

    Wei Wu, Haining Liu & Paul E. Kinahan

  3. Program in Biostatistics and Biomathematics, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Yuzheng Zhang

  4. Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Timothy W. Randolph & A. McGarry Houghton

  5. Translational Research Program, Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kristin J. Lastwika & Paul D. Lampe

  6. Human Biology Divisions, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Kristin J. Lastwika, Paul D. Lampe & A. McGarry Houghton

  7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    A. McGarry Houghton

Authors
  1. Wei Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry A. Pierce
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yuzheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sudhakar N. J. Pipavath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Timothy W. Randolph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kristin J. Lastwika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paul D. Lampe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. McGarry Houghton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Haining Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Liming Xia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Paul E. Kinahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Liming Xia or Paul E. Kinahan.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Paul E. Kinahan.

Conflict of interest

Paul E. Kinahan received a research grant from GE Healthcare outside of this work, and is the cofounder of PET/X LLC.

All other coauthors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

Timothy W. Randolph and Yuzheng Zhang (two coauthors in our paper) have significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• case-control study/diagnostic or prognostic study

• multicenter study

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Paul E. Kinahan and Liming Xia have equal contribution as the corresponding authors.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 170 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, W., Pierce, L.A., Zhang, Y. et al. Comparison of prediction models with radiological semantic features and radiomics in lung cancer diagnosis of the pulmonary nodules: a case-control study. Eur Radiol 29, 6100–6108 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06213-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06213-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation