Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35502397›Full record

ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2022

Development and validation of qualitative and quantitative models to predict invasiveness of lung adenocarcinomas manifesting as pure ground-glass nodules based on low-dose computed tomography during lung cancer screening.

Jieke Liu, Xi Yang, Yong Li, Hao Xu, Changjiu He, Haomiao Qing, Jing Ren, Peng Zhou

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022
    Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jieke Liu *Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Xi Yang *Department of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Yong LiDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Hao XuDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Changjiu HeDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Haomiao QingDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Jing RenDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Peng ZhouDepartment of Radiology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Sichuan Cancer Hospital · CNUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Due to different management strategy and prognosis of different subtypes of lung adenocarcinomas appearing as pure ground-glass nodules (pGGNs), it is important to differentiate invasive adenocarcinoma (IA) from adenocarcinoma in situ/minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (AIS/MIA) during lung cancer screening. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the qualitative and quantitative models to predict the invasiveness of lung adenocarcinoma appearing as pGGNs based on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and compare their diagnostic performance with that of intraoperative frozen section (FS). Methods: A total of 223 consecutive pathologically confirmed pGGNs from March 2018 to December 2020 were divided into a primary cohort (96 IAs and 64 AIS/MIAs) and validation cohort (39 IAs and 24 AIS/MIAs) according to scans (Brilliance iCT and Somatom Definition Flash) performed at Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute. The following LDCT features of pGGNs were analyzed: the qualitative features included nodule location, shape, margin, nodule-lung interface, lobulation, spiculation, pleural indentation, air bronchogram, vacuole, and vessel type, and the quantitative features included the diameter, volume, and mean attenuation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to build a qualitative model, quantitative model, and combined qualitative and quantitative model. The diagnostic performance was assessed according to the following factors: the area under curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Results: The AUCs of the qualitative model, quantitative model, combined qualitative and quantitative model, and the FS diagnosis were 0.854, 0.803, 0.873, and 0.870, respectively, in the primary cohort and 0.884, 0.855, 0.875, and 0.946, respectively, in the validation cohort. No significant difference of the AUCs was found among the radiological models and the FS diagnosis in the primary or validation cohort (all corrected P>0.05). Among the radiological models, the combined qualitative and quantitative model consisting of vessel type and volume showed the highest accuracy in both the primary and validation cohorts (0.831 and 0.889, respectively). Conclusions: The diagnostic performances of the qualitative and quantitative models based on LDCT to differentiate IA from AIS/MIA in pGGNs are equivalent to that of intraoperative FS diagnosis. The vessel type and volume can be preoperative and non-invasive biomarkers to assess the invasive risk of pGGNs in lung cancer screening.

Indexed as

low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)lung adenocarcinomalung cancer screeningPure ground-glass nodule (pGGN)

Identifiers

PMID35502397
PMCPMC9014141
OpenAlexW4214930488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.