IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0078271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Novel and Convenient Method to Evaluate the Character of Solitary Pulmonary Nodule-Comparison of Three Mathematical Prediction Models and Further Stratification of Risk Factors

Author

Listed:
  • Fei Xiao
  • Deruo Liu
  • Yongqing Guo
  • Bin Shi
  • Zhiyi Song
  • Yanchu Tian
  • Chaoyang Liang

Abstract

Objective: To study risk factors that affect the evaluation of malignancy in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN) and verify different predictive models for malignant probability of SPN. Methods: Retrospectively analyzed 107 cases of SPN with definite post-operative histological diagnosis whom underwent surgical procedures in China-Japan Friendship Hospital from November of 2010 to February of 2013. Age, gender, smoking history, malignancy history of patients, imaging features of the nodule including maximum diameter, position, spiculation, lobulation, calcification and serum level of CEA and Cyfra21-1 were assessed as potential risk factors. Univariate analysis model was used to establish statistical correlation between risk factors and post-operative histological diagnosis. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn using different predictive models for malignant probability of SPN to get areas under the curves (AUC values), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values for each model, respectively. The predictive effectiveness of each model was statistically assessed subsequently. Results: In 107 patients, 78 cases were malignant (72.9%), 29 cases were benign (27.1%). Statistical significant difference was found between benign and malignant group in age, maximum diameter, serum level of Cyfra21-1, spiculation, lobulation and calcification of the nodules. The AUC values were 0.786±0.053 (Mayo model), 0.682±0.060 (VA model) and 0.810±0.051 (Peking University People’s Hospital model), respectively. Conclusions: Serum level of Cyfra21-1, patient’s age, maximum diameter of the nodule, spiculation, lobulation and calcification of the nodule are independent risk factors associated with the malignant probability of SPN. Peking University People’s Hospital model is of high accuracy and clinical value for patients with SPN. Adding serum index (e.g. Cyfra21-1) into the prediction models as a new risk factor and adjusting the weight of age in the models might improve the accuracy of prediction for SPN.

Suggested Citation

  • Fei Xiao & Deruo Liu & Yongqing Guo & Bin Shi & Zhiyi Song & Yanchu Tian & Chaoyang Liang, 2013. "Novel and Convenient Method to Evaluate the Character of Solitary Pulmonary Nodule-Comparison of Three Mathematical Prediction Models and Further Stratification of Risk Factors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-6, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0078271
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078271
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078271&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0078271?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah J van Riel & Francesco Ciompi & Mathilde M Winkler Wille & Asger Dirksen & Stephen Lam & Ernst Th Scholten & Santiago E Rossi & Nicola Sverzellati & Matiullah Naqibullah & Rianne Wittenberg & Ma, 2017. "Malignancy risk estimation of pulmonary nodules in screening CTs: Comparison between a computer model and human observers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0078271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.