Abstract
Background and Objective: Differentiating non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from small cell lung cancer (SCLC) remains a substantial challenge. This study aimed at evaluating the performance of dual-layer spectral detector CT (DLCT) in differentiating NSCLC from SCLC.
Methods: Spectral images of 247 cancer patients confirmed by pathology were retrospectively analyzed in both the arterial phase (AP) and the venous phase (VP), including 197 cases of NSCLC and 50 cases of SCLC. Effective atomic number (Z-eff), Spectral CT-Mono Energetic (MonoE [40keV~90keV]), iodine density (ID) and thoracic aorta iodine density (IDaorta) in contrast-enhanced images were measured and compared between the SCLC and NSCLC subgroups of tumors. The slope of the spectral curve (λ, interval of 10 keV) and normalized iodine density (NID) were also calculated between the SCLC and NSCLC. Through the statistical analysis, the diagnostic efficiency of each spectral parameter was calculated, and the difference in their efficiency was analyzed.
Results: Both in NSCLS and SCLC, all parameters in VP were significantly higher than those in AP (p<0.001), except for λ90. There were significant differences in all spectral parameters between NSCLS and SCLC, both in AP and VP (p < 0.001). Except for VP-λ90, there was no significant difference in ROC curves of all spectral parameters. VP-NID exhibited the best diagnostic performance with an AUC value of 0.917 (95%[CI]: 0.870~0.965), sensitivity and specificity of 92.9% and 80%, and a diagnostic threshold of 0.217.
Conclusion: All parameters of DLCT have high diagnostic efficiency in differentiating NSCLC from SCLC except for VP-λ90, and VP-NID has the highest diagnostic efficiency.
Keywords: Non-small cell lung cancer, small cell lung cancer, pathological classification, dual-layer detector, X-ray computed tomography, pathology.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21551] [PMID: 30620402]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660] [PMID: 33538338]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsob.170070] [PMID: 28878044]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr.2019.08.16] [PMID: 31555512]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41571-019-0316-z] [PMID: 32055013]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.034] [PMID: 31378235]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.12.015] [PMID: 30691666]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-2] [PMID: 33532253]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201803-0506IM] [PMID: 30199642]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims.2018.10.06] [PMID: 30976541]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-20-1045] [PMID: 34079728]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.10.012] [PMID: 30691731]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2016.02.003] [PMID: 27261908]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccm.2019.11.001] [PMID: 32008630]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356631] [PMID: 9356631]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2019.02.010] [PMID: 30905380]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.04.017]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.11.004] [PMID: 29221718]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147537] [PMID: 26840459]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.05.016] [PMID: 28668431]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2017.43.010]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49899-z] [PMID: 31527643]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3567509] [PMID: 21626956]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00292-019-00677-8]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000840] [PMID: 30762653]