Haiming Tang MD, PhD, Haoran Xia PhD, Nanfei Sun PhD, Patricia V. Hernandez MD, Minhua Wang MD, PhD, Adebowale J. Adeniran MD, Guoping Cai MD
{"title":"神经内分泌肿瘤诊断检查中神经内分泌标志物的选择:真实世界数据和机器学习模型算法","authors":"Haiming Tang MD, PhD, Haoran Xia PhD, Nanfei Sun PhD, Patricia V. Hernandez MD, Minhua Wang MD, PhD, Adebowale J. Adeniran MD, Guoping Cai MD","doi":"10.1002/cncy.70018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Accurate diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is challenging, especially in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). This study was aimed to search the best or best combination of neuroendocrine markers in the diagnostic workup of NENs via analysis of the real-world data and machine learning algorithms.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Cytology cases with a workup of four neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin, synaptophysin, CD56, and INSM1) were retrieved. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were calculated for each marker alone or in combination. Two machine learning algorithms, neural network and random forests, were also tested.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The study cohort included 106 NENs (64 NECs and 42 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors [NETs]) and 36 non-NEN cases. The combination of synaptophysin and INSM1 had sensitivity of 0.95, specificity of 0.92, and AUC-ROC of 0.93. Addition of CD56 to the combination further increased the sensitivity and AUC-ROC to 1 and 0.96, respectively, in all NENs as well as NEC cases. In addition, the combination of chromogranin, synaptophysin and INSM1 had sensitivity of 1, specificity of 0.92, and AUC-ROC of 0.96 in NETs. Machine learning models, specifically random forests and neural network, confirmed the efficacy of combining synaptophysin, INSM1, and CD56.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The combination of synaptophysin, INSM1, and CD56 has the best performance in diagnostic workup of all NENs, although chromogranin may be selected for NETS. The random forests and neural network models support the common practice rule of requiring at least two out of three markers to be positive for optimal marker utilization.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":9410,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Cytopathology","volume":"133 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selection of neuroendocrine markers in diagnostic workup of neuroendocrine neoplasms: The real-world data and machine learning model algorithms\",\"authors\":\"Haiming Tang MD, PhD, Haoran Xia PhD, Nanfei Sun PhD, Patricia V. Hernandez MD, Minhua Wang MD, PhD, Adebowale J. Adeniran MD, Guoping Cai MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cncy.70018\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Accurate diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is challenging, especially in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). This study was aimed to search the best or best combination of neuroendocrine markers in the diagnostic workup of NENs via analysis of the real-world data and machine learning algorithms.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Cytology cases with a workup of four neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin, synaptophysin, CD56, and INSM1) were retrieved. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were calculated for each marker alone or in combination. Two machine learning algorithms, neural network and random forests, were also tested.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The study cohort included 106 NENs (64 NECs and 42 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors [NETs]) and 36 non-NEN cases. The combination of synaptophysin and INSM1 had sensitivity of 0.95, specificity of 0.92, and AUC-ROC of 0.93. Addition of CD56 to the combination further increased the sensitivity and AUC-ROC to 1 and 0.96, respectively, in all NENs as well as NEC cases. In addition, the combination of chromogranin, synaptophysin and INSM1 had sensitivity of 1, specificity of 0.92, and AUC-ROC of 0.96 in NETs. Machine learning models, specifically random forests and neural network, confirmed the efficacy of combining synaptophysin, INSM1, and CD56.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The combination of synaptophysin, INSM1, and CD56 has the best performance in diagnostic workup of all NENs, although chromogranin may be selected for NETS. The random forests and neural network models support the common practice rule of requiring at least two out of three markers to be positive for optimal marker utilization.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Cytopathology\",\"volume\":\"133 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Cytopathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncy.70018\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Cytopathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncy.70018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Selection of neuroendocrine markers in diagnostic workup of neuroendocrine neoplasms: The real-world data and machine learning model algorithms
Background
Accurate diagnosis of neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) is challenging, especially in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs). This study was aimed to search the best or best combination of neuroendocrine markers in the diagnostic workup of NENs via analysis of the real-world data and machine learning algorithms.
Methods
Cytology cases with a workup of four neuroendocrine markers (chromogranin, synaptophysin, CD56, and INSM1) were retrieved. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) were calculated for each marker alone or in combination. Two machine learning algorithms, neural network and random forests, were also tested.
Results
The study cohort included 106 NENs (64 NECs and 42 well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors [NETs]) and 36 non-NEN cases. The combination of synaptophysin and INSM1 had sensitivity of 0.95, specificity of 0.92, and AUC-ROC of 0.93. Addition of CD56 to the combination further increased the sensitivity and AUC-ROC to 1 and 0.96, respectively, in all NENs as well as NEC cases. In addition, the combination of chromogranin, synaptophysin and INSM1 had sensitivity of 1, specificity of 0.92, and AUC-ROC of 0.96 in NETs. Machine learning models, specifically random forests and neural network, confirmed the efficacy of combining synaptophysin, INSM1, and CD56.
Conclusions
The combination of synaptophysin, INSM1, and CD56 has the best performance in diagnostic workup of all NENs, although chromogranin may be selected for NETS. The random forests and neural network models support the common practice rule of requiring at least two out of three markers to be positive for optimal marker utilization.
期刊介绍:
Cancer Cytopathology provides a unique forum for interaction and dissemination of original research and educational information relevant to the practice of cytopathology and its related oncologic disciplines. The journal strives to have a positive effect on cancer prevention, early detection, diagnosis, and cure by the publication of high-quality content. The mission of Cancer Cytopathology is to present and inform readers of new applications, technological advances, cutting-edge research, novel applications of molecular techniques, and relevant review articles related to cytopathology.