Development and Validation of a Risk Assessment Model for Pulmonary Nodules Using Plasma Proteins and Clinical Factors

被引:2
|
作者
Vachani, Anil [1 ,2 ]
Lam, Stephen [8 ]
Massion, Pierre P. [3 ]
Brown, James K. [4 ,5 ]
Beggs, Michael [6 ]
Fish, Amanda L. [6 ]
Carbonell, Luis [6 ]
Wang, Shan X. [6 ]
Mazzone, Peter J. [7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Dept Med, Pulm Allergy & Crit Care Div, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Corporal Michael J Crescenz VA Med Ctr, Dept Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Vanderbilt Univ, Div Allergy Pulm & Crit Care Med, Nashville, TN USA
[4] Univ Calif San Francisco, Div Pulm Crit Care Allergy & Sleep Med, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[5] VA Med Ctr San Francisco, Dept Med, San Francisco, CA USA
[6] Mag Array Inc, Milpitas, CA USA
[7] Cleveland Clin, Resp Inst, Cleveland, OH USA
[8] Univ British Columbia, Dept Integrat Oncol, British Columbia Canc Res Inst, Vancouver, BC, Canada
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
biomarkers; diagnosis; lung cancer; pulmonary nodules; prediction; LUNG-CANCER; PROBABILITY; MANAGEMENT; MALIGNANCY; ACCURACY; PATIENT;
D O I
10.1016/j.chest.2022.10.038
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Deficiencies in risk assessment for patients with pulmonary nodules (PNs) contribute to unnecessary invasive testing and delays in diagnosis.RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the accuracy of a novel PN risk model that includes plasma proteins and clinical factors? How does the accuracy compare with that of an established risk model?STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Based on technology using magnetic nanosensors, assays were developed with seven plasma proteins. In a training cohort (n = 429), machine learning approaches were used to identify an optimal algorithm that subsequently was evaluated in a validation cohort (n = 489), and its performance was compared with the Mayo Clinic model.RESULTS: In the training set, we identified a support vector machine algorithm that included the seven plasma proteins and six clinical factors that demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 and met other selection criteria. The resulting risk reclassification model (RRM) was used to recategorize patients with a pretest risk of between 10% and 84%, and its performance was assessed across five risk strata (low, # 10%; moderate, 10%-34%; intermediate, 35%-70%; high, 71%-84%; very high, > 85%). Stratifi- cation by the RRM decreased the proportion of intermediate-risk patients from 26.7% to 10.8% (P < .001) and increased the low-risk and high-risk strata from 16.8% to 21.9% (P < .001) and from 3.7% to 12.1% (P < .001), respectively. Among patients classified as low risk by the RRM and Mayo Clinic model, the corresponding true-negative to false-negative ratios were 16.8 and 19.5, respectively. Among patients classified as very high risk by the RRM and Mayo Clinic model, the corresponding true-positive to false-positive ratios were 28.5 and 17.0, respectively. Compared with the Mayo Clinic model, the RRM provided higher spec-ificity at the low-risk threshold and higher sensitivity at the very high-risk threshold.INTERPRETATION: The RRM accurately reclassified some patients into low-risk and very high-risk categories, suggesting the potential to improve PN risk assessment.
引用
收藏
页码:966 / 976
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A Malignancy Risk Prediction Model For High-Risk Pulmonary Nodules
    Reid, M.
    Choi, H.
    Mukhopadhyay, S.
    Morgan, L.
    Khawaja, A.
    Mazzone, P. J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2017, 195
  • [42] Validation of a pulmonary embolism risk assessment model in gynecological inpatients: Clinical trial: A single-center, retrospective study
    Jin, Zhen-Yi
    Li, Chun-Min
    Qu, Hong
    Yang, Wen-Tao
    Wen, Jia-Hao
    Ren, Hua-Liang
    THROMBOSIS JOURNAL, 2024, 22 (01):
  • [43] Validation of Clinical Scores for Risk Assessment
    van Griensven, Johan
    Florence, Eric
    Van den Ende, Jef
    CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2012, 54 (10) : 1520 - 1521
  • [44] DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL FOR VTE IN HOSPITALIZED MEDICAL PATIENTS
    Rothberg, Michael B.
    Hamilton, Aaron
    Kou, Lei
    Hu, Bo
    Pappas, Matthew A.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2018, 33 : S156 - S157
  • [45] Development and Validation of Osteoporosis Risk-Assessment Model for Korean Men
    Oh, Sun Min
    Song, Bo Mi
    Nam, Byung-Ho
    Rhee, Yumie
    Moon, Seong-Hwan
    Kim, Deog Young
    Kang, Dae Ryong
    Kim, Hyeon Chang
    YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 57 (01) : 187 - 196
  • [46] Development and validation of an international preoperative risk assessment model for postoperative delirium
    Dodsworth, Benjamin T.
    Reeve, Kelly
    Falco, Lisa
    Hueting, Tom
    Sadeghirad, Behnam
    Mbuagbaw, Lawrence
    Goettel, Nicolai
    Gelsomino, Nayeli Schmutz
    AGE AND AGEING, 2023, 52 (06)
  • [47] Development and Validation of the PREMMplus Model for Multigene Hereditary Cancer Risk Assessment
    Yurgelun, Matthew B. B.
    Uno, Hajime
    Furniss, C. Sloane
    Ukaegbu, Chinedu
    Horiguchi, Miki
    Yussuf, Amal
    LaDuca, Holly
    Chittenden, Anu
    Garber, Judy E. E.
    Syngal, Sapna
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2022, 40 (35) : 4083 - +
  • [48] Development of a clinical decision model for thyroid nodules
    Stojadinovic, Alexander
    Peoples, George E.
    Libutti, Steven K.
    Henry, Leonard R.
    Eberhardt, John
    Howard, Robin S.
    Gur, David
    Elster, Eric A.
    Nissan, Aviram
    BMC SURGERY, 2009, 9
  • [49] Development of a clinical decision model for thyroid nodules
    Alexander Stojadinovic
    George E Peoples
    Steven K Libutti
    Leonard R Henry
    John Eberhardt
    Robin S Howard
    David Gur
    Eric A Elster
    Aviram Nissan
    BMC Surgery, 9
  • [50] Development of a Risk Prediction Model to Estimate the Probability of Malignancy in Pulmonary Nodules Being Considered for Biopsy
    Reid, Michal
    Choi, Humberto K.
    Han, Xiaozhen
    Wang, Xiaofeng
    Mukhopadhyay, Sanjay
    Kou, Lei
    Ahmad, Usman
    Wang, Xiaoqiong
    Mazzone, Peter J.
    CHEST, 2019, 156 (02) : 367 - 375