Semantic CT features and differentiation model: new primary lung cancer versus metastasis after previous malignancy.

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
European Radiology Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-06 DOI:10.1007/s00330-026-12557-w
Hardeep Singh Kalsi, Kristofer Linton-Reid, Changhyun Kim, Mitchell Chen, Victoria Crowe, Esubalew Alemu, Samir Mahboobani, David Gibeon, Alexander Procter, Mohsen Hajhosseiny, Cara Owens, Emily C Bartlett, Nuria Porta, Thesha Thavaraja, Simon Doran, Anand Devaraj, Bhupinder Sharma, Arjun Nair, Eric O Aboagye, Richard W Lee
{"title":"Semantic CT features and differentiation model: new primary lung cancer versus metastasis after previous malignancy.","authors":"Hardeep Singh Kalsi, Kristofer Linton-Reid, Changhyun Kim, Mitchell Chen, Victoria Crowe, Esubalew Alemu, Samir Mahboobani, David Gibeon, Alexander Procter, Mohsen Hajhosseiny, Cara Owens, Emily C Bartlett, Nuria Porta, Thesha Thavaraja, Simon Doran, Anand Devaraj, Bhupinder Sharma, Arjun Nair, Eric O Aboagye, Richard W Lee","doi":"10.1007/s00330-026-12557-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>New pulmonary lesions after prior cancer present a diagnostic challenge, potentially representing malignancy relapse or new primary lung cancer due to shared risk factors and/or impact of prior oncological therapies. This study evaluated radiologist-defined semantic features for differentiation of second primary lung cancer (SPLC) versus lung metastasis (LM).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>651 single-timepoint, pre-treatment CT thorax scans from the multicentre retrospective AI-SONAR biomarker study (IRAS 331656 REC 23/NE/0151) were divided for review by nine thoracic oncology radiologists to evaluate eight semantic features. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify significant features and a developed 'Second Malignancy Aetiology Recognition Tool' model (SMART) was compared to real-world clinical reader performance using McNemar's test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>649 scans were technically usable, 299 SPLC and 350 LM. Emphysema (p < 0.0001, OR 0.20 [95% CI 0.14-0.29]), irregular contour (p < 0.0001, OR 0.31 [95% CI 0.20-0.48]) and spiculation (p = 0.013, OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.30-0.89]) were more prevalent in SPLC (OR < 1 indicates association with SPLC). Peripheral lung distribution (p = 0.003, OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.20-2.68]) was more common in LM (OR > 1 indicates metastasis). SMART model AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84), LM classification accuracy 75% vs 69% by radiology reader and McNemar p-value < 0.01 for comparative accuracy. 550/649 cases were predicted SPLC or LM by radiologists, in which the SMART model LM classification accuracy was 74% vs 77% by reader and McNemar p-value 0.20.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In new lesions after prior treated cancer, radiologist readers called SPLC more often than LM. The SMART model performed comparably with expert thoracic radiologists in the diagnosis of LM.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Differentiating the malignant aetiology of indeterminate lung lesions after prior cancer presents a growing diagnostic challenge. The literature and nodule guidelines are sparse for this setting. Findings A SMART model derived from semantic CT imaging features correctly classified malignant lung lesions as metastasis or lung cancer, more often than thoracic radiologists. Clinical relevance The SMART model could improve the stratification of malignant new lung lesions after prior cancer. This may lead to earlier diagnosis and optimise patient management, treatment selection and downstream outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"6969-6980"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13451270/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-026-12557-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: New pulmonary lesions after prior cancer present a diagnostic challenge, potentially representing malignancy relapse or new primary lung cancer due to shared risk factors and/or impact of prior oncological therapies. This study evaluated radiologist-defined semantic features for differentiation of second primary lung cancer (SPLC) versus lung metastasis (LM).

Materials and methods: 651 single-timepoint, pre-treatment CT thorax scans from the multicentre retrospective AI-SONAR biomarker study (IRAS 331656 REC 23/NE/0151) were divided for review by nine thoracic oncology radiologists to evaluate eight semantic features. Logistic regression analysis was undertaken to identify significant features and a developed 'Second Malignancy Aetiology Recognition Tool' model (SMART) was compared to real-world clinical reader performance using McNemar's test.

Results: 649 scans were technically usable, 299 SPLC and 350 LM. Emphysema (p < 0.0001, OR 0.20 [95% CI 0.14-0.29]), irregular contour (p < 0.0001, OR 0.31 [95% CI 0.20-0.48]) and spiculation (p = 0.013, OR 0.51 [95% CI 0.30-0.89]) were more prevalent in SPLC (OR < 1 indicates association with SPLC). Peripheral lung distribution (p = 0.003, OR 1.80 [95% CI 1.20-2.68]) was more common in LM (OR > 1 indicates metastasis). SMART model AUC was 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84), LM classification accuracy 75% vs 69% by radiology reader and McNemar p-value < 0.01 for comparative accuracy. 550/649 cases were predicted SPLC or LM by radiologists, in which the SMART model LM classification accuracy was 74% vs 77% by reader and McNemar p-value 0.20.

Conclusion: In new lesions after prior treated cancer, radiologist readers called SPLC more often than LM. The SMART model performed comparably with expert thoracic radiologists in the diagnosis of LM.

Key points: Question Differentiating the malignant aetiology of indeterminate lung lesions after prior cancer presents a growing diagnostic challenge. The literature and nodule guidelines are sparse for this setting. Findings A SMART model derived from semantic CT imaging features correctly classified malignant lung lesions as metastasis or lung cancer, more often than thoracic radiologists. Clinical relevance The SMART model could improve the stratification of malignant new lung lesions after prior cancer. This may lead to earlier diagnosis and optimise patient management, treatment selection and downstream outcomes.

语义CT特征和分化模型:新发原发性肺癌与既往恶性肿瘤转移。
目的:由于共同的危险因素和/或既往肿瘤治疗的影响,既往癌症后新发肺部病变对诊断提出了挑战,可能代表恶性复发或新的原发性肺癌。本研究评估了放射科医师定义的第二原发性肺癌(SPLC)与肺转移(LM)鉴别的语义特征。材料和方法:来自多中心回顾性AI-SONAR生物标志物研究(IRAS 331656 REC 23/NE/0151)的651张单时间点治疗前胸部CT扫描图,由9名胸部肿瘤放射科医师进行评估,以评估8个语义特征。采用逻辑回归分析来确定重要特征,并使用McNemar测试将开发的“第二恶性肿瘤病因识别工具”模型(SMART)与现实世界的临床读者表现进行比较。结果:649个扫描在技术上可用,299个SPLC和350个LM。肺气肿(p 1提示转移)。SMART模型的AUC为0.81 (95% CI为0.78-0.84),LM分类准确率为75%,而放射学读者和McNemar p值为69%。结论:在先前治疗过的癌症后的新病变中,放射学读者更常称为SPLC而不是LM。SMART模型在LM诊断方面的表现与胸科放射科专家相当。鉴别既往癌症后不确定肺病变的恶性病因是一个越来越大的诊断挑战。关于这种情况的文献和结节指南很少。基于语义CT影像特征的SMART模型将恶性肺病变正确分类为转移或肺癌的概率高于胸科放射科医生。临床意义SMART模型可改善既往肺癌后新发肺恶性病变的分层。这可能导致早期诊断和优化患者管理,治疗选择和下游结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书