A machine learning tool to improve prediction of mediastinal lymph node metastases in non-small cell lung cancer using routinely obtainable [18F]FDG-PET/CT parameters.

BACKGROUND: In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), accuracy of [18F]FDG-PET/CT for pretherapeutic lymph node (LN) staging is limited by false positive findings. Our aim was to evaluate machine learning with routinely obtainable variables to improve accuracy over standard visual image assessment. METHODS: Monocentric retrospective analysis of pretherapeutic [18F]FDG-PET/CT in 491 consecutive patients with NSCLC using an analog PET/CT scanner (training + test cohort, n = 385) or digital scanner (validation, n = 106). Forty clinical variables, tumor characteristics, and image variables (e.g., primary tumor and LN SUVmax and size) were collected. Different combinations of machine learning methods for feature selection and classification of N0/1 vs. N2/3 disease were compared. Ten-fold nested cross-validation was used to derive the mean area under the ROC curve of the ten test folds ("test AUC") and AUC in the validation cohort. Reference standard was the final N stage from interdisciplinary consensus (histological results for N2/3 LNs in 96%). RESULTS: N2/3 disease was present in 190 patients (39%; training + test, 37%; validation, 46%; p = 0.09). A gradient boosting classifier (GBM) with 10 features was selected as the final model based on test AUC of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.94). Validation AUC was 0.94 (0.89-0.98). At a target sensitivity of approx. 90%, test/validation accuracy of the GBM was 0.78/0.87. This was significantly higher than the accuracy based on "mediastinal LN uptake > mediastinum" (0.7/0.75; each p < 0.05) or combined PET/CT criteria (PET positive and/or LN short axis diameter > 10 mm; 0.68/0.75; each p < 0.001). Harmonization of PET images between the two scanners affected SUVmax and visual assessment of the LNs but did not diminish the AUC of the GBM. CONCLUSIONS: A machine learning model based on routinely available variables from [18F]FDG-PET/CT improved accuracy in mediastinal LN staging compared to established visual assessment criteria. A web application implementing this model was made available.

FDG-PET/CT for pretherapeutic lymph node staging in non-small cell lung cancer: A tailored approach to the ESTS/ESMO guideline workflow.

OBJECTIVES: In patients with NSCLC, current ESTS and ESMO guidelines recommend invasive lymph node (LN) staging with EBUS-TBNA even if FDG-PET/CT is negative for mediastinal LNs if at least one of three risk factors is present (cN1, non-peripheral primary or primary >3 cm). Modified workflows to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Monocentric retrospective analysis of pretherapeutic FDG-PET/CT in 247 patients with NSCLC (62 % male; age, 68 [43-88] years) using an analog or digital PET/CT scanner. PET windowing was standardized. LNs were positive if 'LN uptake > mediastinal blood pool' or short axis >10 mm. Surgery or EBUS-TBNA served as reference for diagnostic accuracy per LN station. In all patients with negative mediastinal LNs by PET/CT, LN histology from surgery was available. RESULTS: Among 700 L N stations analyzed, 180 were malignant. Sensitivity and specificity of PET/CT per LN station were 93 % and 71 %. Following current guidelines, 76 patients with mediastinal negative PET/CT required confirmatory invasive staging. Only 5/76 patients had unexpected pN2 (all had adenocarcinoma). In a modified approach, confirmatory invasive staging was confined to patients with mediastinal negative PET/CT who showed all three risk factors. Using this modification, EBUS-TBNA could have been omitted in 62 (82 %) of the 76 patients who required EBUS-TBNA based on current recommendation. Among these 62 patients, only one patient had unsuspected pN2 (single-level) while the remaining 61 of 62 omitted EBUS-TBNA were deemed unnecessary because mediastinal LNs were confirmed to be negative. No multi-level pN2 would have been missed. CONCLUSION: In the current analysis, 82 % of EBUS-TBNA procedures in patients with mediastinal negative PET/CT could have been omitted by modifying the current guideline workflow as proposed (i.e., restricting EBUS-TBNA in patients with cN0/1 to those with all three risk factors). This was consistent with different PET/CT scanners. Prospective confirmation is required.