Comparison and fusion prediction model for lung adenocarcinoma with micropapillary and solid pattern using clinicoradiographic, radiomics and deep learning features

To investigate whether the combination scheme of deep learning score (DL-score) and radiomics can improve preoperative diagnosis in the presence of micropapillary/solid (MPP/SOL) patterns in lung adenocarcinoma (ADC). A retrospective cohort of 514 confirmed pathologically lung ADC in 512 patients af...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2023-06, Vol.13 (1), p.9302-9302, Article 9302
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Fen, Wang, Cheng-Long, Yi, Yin-Qiao, Zhang, Teng, Zhong, Yan, Zhu, Jia-Jia, Li, Hai, Yang, Guang, Yu, Tong-Fu, Xu, Hai, Yuan, Mei
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To investigate whether the combination scheme of deep learning score (DL-score) and radiomics can improve preoperative diagnosis in the presence of micropapillary/solid (MPP/SOL) patterns in lung adenocarcinoma (ADC). A retrospective cohort of 514 confirmed pathologically lung ADC in 512 patients after surgery was enrolled. The clinicoradiographic model (model 1) and radiomics model (model 2) were developed with logistic regression. The deep learning model (model 3) was constructed based on the deep learning score (DL-score). The combine model (model 4) was based on DL-score and R-score and clinicoradiographic variables. The performance of these models was evaluated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared using DeLong's test internally and externally. The prediction nomogram was plotted, and clinical utility depicted with decision curve. The performance of model 1, model 2, model 3 and model 4 was supported by AUCs of 0.848, 0.896, 0.906, 0.921 in the Internal validation set, that of 0.700, 0.801, 0.730, 0.827 in external validation set, respectively. These models existed statistical significance in internal validation (model 4 vs model 3, P = 0.016; model 4 vs model 1, P = 0.009, respectively) and external validation (model 4 vs model 2, P = 0.036; model 4 vs model 3, P = 0.047; model 4 vs model 1, P = 0.016, respectively). The decision curve analysis (DCA) demonstrated that model 4 predicting the lung ADC with MPP/SOL structure would be more beneficial than the model 1and model 3 but comparable with the model 2. The combined model can improve preoperative diagnosis in the presence of MPP/SOL pattern in lung ADC in clinical practice.
ISSN:2045-2322
2045-2322
DOI:10.1038/s41598-023-36409-5