Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31182167›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2019

Predicting malignant potential of subsolid nodules: can radiomics preempt longitudinal follow up CT?

Subba R Digumarthy, Atul M Padole, Shivam Rastogi, Melissa Price, Meghan J Mooradian, Lecia V Sequist, Mannudeep K Kalra

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Subba R DigumarthyDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. sdigumarthy@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4041-6716
Atul M PadoleDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Shivam RastogiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Melissa PriceDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Meghan J MooradianDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Lecia V SequistDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Mannudeep K KalraDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess if radiomics can differentiate benign and malignant subsolid lung nodules (SSNs) on baseline or follow up chest CT examinations. If radiomics can differentiate between benign and malignant subsolid lung nodules, the clinical implications are shorter follow up CT imaging and early recognition of lung adenocarcinoma on imaging. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe IRB approved retrospective study included 36 patients (mean age 69 ± 8 years; 5 males, 31 females) with 108 SSNs (31benign, 77 malignant) who underwent follow up chest CT for evaluation of indeterminate SSN. All SSNs were identified on both baseline and follow up chest CT. DICOM CT images were deidentified and exported into the open access 3D Slicer software (version 4.7) to obtain radiomic features. Logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for various quantitative parameters were generated with SPSS statistical software.

resultsOnly 2/92 radiomic features (cluster shade and surface volume ratio) enabled differentiation between malignant and benign SSN on baseline chest CT (P = 0.01 and 0.03) with moderate accuracy [AUC 0.624 (0.505-0.743)]. On follow-up CT, 52/92 radiomic features were significantly different between benign and malignant SSN (P: 0.04 - < 0.0001) with improved accuracy [AUC: 0.708 (0.605-0.811), P = 0.04 - < 0.0001]. Radiomics of benign SSN were stable over time, whereas 63/92 radiomic features of malignant SSNs changed significantly between the baseline and follow up chest CT (P: 0.04 - < 0.0001).

conclusionsTemporal changes in radiomic features of subsolid lung nodules favor malignant etiology over benign. The change in radiomics features of subsolid lung nodules can allow shorter follow up CT imaging and early recognition of lung adenocarcinoma on imaging. Radiomic features have limited application in differentiating benign and early malignant SSN on baseline chest CT.

Indexed as

Adenocarcinoma of LungAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsTomography, X-Ray ComputedBenign and malignant lung nodulesChest CTFollow up CTLung cancerRadiomicsSubsolid nodules

Identifiers

PMID31182167
PMCPMC6558852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.