Objectives To determine the added value of combining intratumoral and peritumoral CT radiomics for the prediction of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene mutations in primary lung cancer (PLC). Methods This study included 478 patients with PLC (348 adenocarcinomas and 130 other histological types) who underwent surgical resection and EGFR gene testing. Two radiologists performed segmentation of tumors and peritumoral regions using precontrast high-resolution CT images, and 398 radiomic features (212 intra- and 186 peritumoral features) were extracted. The peritumoral region was defined as the lung parenchyma within a distance of 3 mm from the tumor border. Model performance was estimated using Random Forest, a machine-learning algorithm. Results EGFR mutations were found in 162 tumors; 161 adenocarcinomas, and one pleomorphic carcinoma. After exclusion of poorly reproducible and redundant features, 32 radiomic features remained (14 intra- and 18 peritumoral features) and were included in the model building. For predicting EGFR mutations, combining intra- and peritumoral radiomics significantly improved the performance compared to intratumoral radiomics alone (AUC [area under the receiver operating characteristic curve], 0.774 vs 0.730; p < 0.001). Even in adenocarcinomas only, adding peritumoral radiomics significantly increased performance (AUC, 0.687 vs 0.630; p < 0.001). The predictive performance using radiomics and clinical features was significantly higher than that of clinical features alone (AUC, 0.826 vs 0.777; p = 0.005). Conclusions Combining intra- and peritumoral radiomics improves the predictive accuracy of EGFR mutations and could be used to aid in decision-making of whether to perform biopsy for gene tests. Advances in knowledge Adding peritumoral to intratumoral radiomics yields greater accuracy than intratumoral radiomics alone in predicting EGFR mutations and may serve as a non-invasive method of predicting of the gene status in PLC.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of the soft tissue image obtained by the one-shot dual-energy subtraction (DES) method using a flat-panel detector compared with the standard image alone in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs. We evaluated 155 nodules (48 calcified and 107 non-calcified) in 139 patients. Five radiologists (readers 1 − 5) with 26, 14, 8, 6 and 3 years of experience, respectively, evaluated whether the nodules were calcified using chest radiography. CT was used as the gold standard of calcification and non-calcification. Accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared between analyses with and without soft tissue images. The misdiagnosis ratio (false positive plus false negative ratios) when nodules and bones overlapped was also examined. The accuracy of all radiologists increased after adding soft tissue images (readers 1 − 5: 89.7% vs. 92.3% [P = 0.206], 83.2% vs. 87.7% [P = 0.178], 79.4% vs. 92.3% [P < 0.001], 77.4% vs. 87.1% [P = 0.007], and 63.2% vs. 83.2% [P < 0.001], respectively). AUCs for all the readers improved, except for reader 2 (readers 1 − 5: 0.927 vs. 0.937 [P = 0.495], 0.853 vs. 0.834 [P = 0.624], 0.825 vs. 0.878 [P = 0.151], 0.808 vs. 0.896 [P < 0.001], and 0.694 vs. 0.846 [P < 0.001], respectively). The misdiagnosis ratio for nodules that overlapped with the bone decreased after adding soft tissue images in all readers (11.5% vs. 7.6% [P = 0.096], 17.6% vs. 12.2% [P = 0.144], 21.4% vs. 7.6% [P < 0.001], 22.1% vs. 14.5% [P = 0.050] and 35.9% vs. 16.0% [P < 0.001], respectively), particularly that of readers 3 − 5. In conclusion, the soft tissue images obtained using one-shot DES with a flat-panel detector have added value in distinguishing calcified from non-calcified nodules on chest radiographs, especially for less experienced radiologists.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.