
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39300206
72592
10.1038/s41598-024-72592-9
Article
The study of plain CT combined with contrast-enhanced CT-based models in predicting malignancy of solitary solid pulmonary nodules
Zhang Wenjia 1
Cui Xiaonan 2
Wang Jing 3
Cui Sha 4
Yang Jianghua 4
Meng Junjie 5
Zhu Weijie 2
Li Zhiqi 2
Niu Jinliang sxlscjy@163.com

1
1 https://ror.org/0265d1010 grid.263452.4 0000 0004 1798 4018 Department of Medical Imaging, Shanxi Medical University, NO.56 Xinjian Road, Taiyuan, 030000 Shanxi The People’s Republic of China
2 https://ror.org/0152hn881 grid.411918.4 0000 0004 1798 6427 National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Key Laboratory of Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin, Department of Radiology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute & Hospital, Tianjin, The People’s Republic of China
3 https://ror.org/05gpas306 grid.506977.a 0000 0004 1757 7957 Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, The People’s Republic of China
4 https://ror.org/03tn5kh37 grid.452845.a Department of Radiology, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, The People’s Republic of China
5 https://ror.org/03tn5kh37 grid.452845.a Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan, The People’s Republic of China
19 9 2024
19 9 2024
2024
14 2187111 4 2024
9 9 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
To compare the diagnostic performance between plain CT-based model and plain plus contrast CT-based modelin the classification of malignancy for solitary solid pulmonary nodules. Between January 2012 and July 2021, 527 patients with pathologically confirmed solitary solid pulmonary nodules were collected at dual centers with similar CT examinations and scanning parameters. Before surgery, all patients underwent both plain and contrast-enhanced chest CT scans. Two clinical characteristics, fifteen plain CT characteristics, and four enhanced characteristics were used to develop two logistic regression models: model 1 (plain CT only) and model 2 (plain + contrast CT). The diagnostic performance of the two models was assessed separately in the development and external validation cohorts using the AUC. 392 patients from Center A were included in the training cohort (median size, 20.0 [IQR, 15.0–24.0] mm; mean age, 55.8 [SD, 9.9] years; male, 53.3%). 135 patients from Center B were included in the external validation cohort (median size, 20.0 [IQR, 16.0–24.0] mm; mean age, 56.4 [SD, 9.6] years; male, 51.9%). Preoperative patients with 201 malignant (adenocarcinoma, 148 [73.6%]; squamous cell carcinoma, 35 [17.4%]; large cell carcinoma,18 [9.0%]) and 326 benign (pulmonary hamartoma, 118 [36.2%]; sclerosing pneumocytoma, 35 [10.7%]; tuberculosis, 104 [31.9%]; inflammatory pseudonodule, 69 [21.2%]) solitary solid pulmonary nodules were gathered from two independent centers. The mean sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, and AUC (95%CI) of model 1 (Plain CT only) were 0.79, 0.78, 0.79, 0.67, 0.87, and 0.88 (95%CI, 0.82–0.93), the model 2 (Plain + Contrast CT) were 0.88, 0.91, 0.90, 0.84, 0.93, 0.93 (95%CI, 0.88–0.98) in external validation cohort, respectively. A logistic regression model based on plain and contrast-enhanced CT characteristics showed exceptional performance in the evaluation of malignancy for solitary solid lung nodules. Utilizing this contrast-enhanced CT model would provide recommendations concerning follow-up or surgical intervention for preoperative patients presenting with solid lung nodules.

Keywords

Pulmonary nodules
Logistic regression model
Prediction
Contrast-enhanced CT
Subject terms

Cancer models
Lung cancer
Cancer imaging
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100014717 National Outstanding Youth Science Fund Project of National Natural Science Foundation of China 82302180 Cui Xiaonan Tianjin Key Medical Discipline(Specialty) Construction ProjectTJYXZDXK-010A Cui Xiaonan issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the world1,2. The imaging evaluation of a solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) is complex, however, which can be improved by early detection and prompt treatment3–8. The American National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) 2011 showed that CT screening for lung cancer reduced mortality by 20% compared to chest X-rays9. Although plain CT is prominent in lung nodule detection, it is limited in differentiating benign from malignant10–12. To facilitate timely and personalized patient treatment, it is crucial to accurately characterize the nature of lung lesions. Performing a tissue biopsy is an invasive procedure, done especially on smaller nodules or in difficult-to-reach areas of the lung13,14. The PET-CT scan plays a crucial role in the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules. Nevertheless, it is associated with a notable incidence of false negatives, exemplified by cases where lung adenocarcinoma presents as subsolid nodules, as well as false positives, with pathological findings indicating inflammatory pseudotumors and tuberculosis. In addition, PET-CT requires expensive equipment and increases patients' financial burdens. In contrast to PET-CT, contrast-enhanced CT is relatively low-cost and remains the primary preoperative examination for most patients with lung nodules in developing countries. Contrast-enhanced CT helps to highlight blood vessels and other structures, making it easier to identify abnormalities such as tumors15. Lung nodule CT contrast enhancement reflects the nodule blood supply. The region without enhancement is strongly predictive of benign hypovascular lesion, and the region with a rich blood supply may reflect underlying nodule angiogenesis and indicate nodule malignancy16–18. Thus, a model for diagnosing lung nodules using contrast-enhanced CT is needed.

A study focusing on contrast-enhanced CT showed high sensitivity to differentiate benign and malignant nodules by using 15HU enhancement as a cut-off value (sensitivity 98%), however, the specificity for malignancy was only 50–60%17. These results showed that the only feature of enhancement value is not enough to effectively differentiate benign from malignant. In practical clinical work, radiologists will comprehensively consider the imaging features of nodule size, margin, and location, especially the heterogeneity of enhancement. This suggests that we need to incorporate more features to build the model, rather than just a single enhancement value feature.

This study aims to establish and authenticate two models that rely on plain CT and contrast-enhanced CT to predict the malignancy of solitary solid pulmonary nodules in a dual-center investigation. Through a comparative analysis of the diagnostic effectiveness of the two models, the study endeavors to elucidate the optimal preoperative diagnostic approach for solitary solid pulmonary nodules.

Materials and methods

Ethics approval

The study was conducted in compliance with the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Ethics Committees of the Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (TMUCIH), and Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University (SHSMU) (No. bc2021327), and all procedures adhered to pertinent guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

A retrospective analysis of data from dual centers was conducted in this study. Between January 2012 and July 2021, 392 patients with pathologically confirmed solitary pulmonary nodules were recruited from center A, and 135 patients from center B. Both centers had the same inclusion and exclusion criteria: requiring patients to have a primary solitary solid lung nodule with a diameter less than 30mm on CT, to have received both plain CT and contrast-enhanced CT within one month before surgery, to have clear histologic types as indicated by postoperative pathology reports, and to have no metastasis. The study employed exclusion criteria consisting of four conditions: (1) solitary solid lung nodules with a diameter of 30mm or greater, (2) patients who underwent preoperative therapy such as neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy, (3) patients with an unclear pathology result, and (4) unavailable contrast-enhanced CT images.

Clinical and radiological data

We retrospectively collected and analyzed radiological data from two hospitals. The study enrolled a total of 392 patients at Center A and 135 patients at Center B who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Preoperative contrast-enhanced and plain CT scans were acquired using SOMATOM Sensation 64, GE Discovery 750HD, GE Revolution, and Philips IQon. RadiAnt DICOM Viewer (version 2021.1) was used for image evaluation, in a lung window setting (width, 1450HU; level, -500HU) and a mediastinal window setting (width, 350HU; level, -500HU) respectively. After mutual consultation, two radiologists (C.X.N 10-year experience and Z.W.J 9-year experience) resolved discrepancies between CT characteristics given by each radiologist. Two clinical characteristics (1) age; (2) gender, fifteen plain CT characteristics (3) diameter (4) nodule location_1 (left upper, left lower, right upper, right middle, right lower); (5) nodule location_2 (peripheral, central); (6)shape (round/oval, irregular); (7)margin (smooth, lobulated, spiculated); (8) calcification; (9) fat; (10) necrosis; (11) cavitation; (12) air bronchogram; (13) pleural indentation; (14) vascular invasion; (15) post obstructive pneumonia; (16) satellite nodules; (17) Plain CT value and four enhanced CT characteristics (18) subjective enhancement (uniform, heterogeneous, no); (19) enhanced CT value; (20) enhancement difference; (21) enhancement rate (enhancement difference / plain CT value).

Computed tomography examination

CT examinations were performed at dual centers, utilizing the GE Discovery CT 750 HD and Siemens Somatom Sensation 64 CT system at the Center-A, and the GE Revolution CT, GE Discovery CT 750 HD, and Philips iQon spectral CT at the Center-B. The examinations consisted of an acquisition both with and without iodine contrast. The inspiratory scans are performed with the patient in the supine position from the apex to the base of the lungs. The scanning protocol was as follows: at Center-A, tube voltage 120 kVp with automatic tube current modulation. The iodine contrast agent Visipaque (Iodixanol, 270 mg/ml) was administered at an amount of 1.5 mL/kg and injection rate of 2.5 mL/s. Contrast agents were administered intravenously through the upper extremity. Scanning was performed 70 s after the start of the injection. At Center-B, tube voltage 120 kVp with automatic tube current modulation. The iodine contrast agent Visipaque (Iodixanol, 320 mg/ml) was administered at an amount of 60 ml and injection rate of 3.5 mL/s. Contrast agents were administered intravenously through the upper extremity. Scanning was performed 60 s after the start of the injection. The pitch, acquired slice thickness, and reconstructed slice thickness varied among the GE, Siemens, and Philips CT systems. Specifically, the GE CT system had a pitch of 0.984 and acquired and reconstructed slice thickness of 1.25 mm, the Siemens CT system had a pitch of 0.95 and acquired and reconstructed slice thickness of 1.5 mm, and the Philips CT system had a pitch of 1.23 and acquired and reconstructed slice thickness of 1.0 mm.

Model construction and evaluation

Our two models for lung nodule malignancy classification were built using 392 nodules from Center-A as a training cohort and 135 nodules from Center-B as an external validation cohort. Clinical and CT characteristics were normalized using a feature standardization method19. Based on the training cohort, model 1 (plain CT only) was built with two clinical and fifteen plain CT characteristics based on logistic regression (P < 0.05 in univariable analysis). Model 2 (plain + contrasted) was built with two clinical, fifteen plain CT characteristics, and four enhanced CT characteristics. In the external validation cohort, we verify the classification efficiency of the two models.

Statistical analysis

The present study utilized the Students' t-test to compare continuous data, which were expressed as mean values accompanied by standard deviation (SD), and categorical data, which were presented as percentages (%). Additionally, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was employed to compare non-normally distributed continuous variables, which were presented as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Statistical significance was determined by a p-value of 0.05 on both sides. The evaluation of the two cohorts involved the assessment of various performance metrics, including the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values (NPV), and positive predictive values (PPV). SPSS software version 20.0 (IBM Corp.) was used for the statistical analyses.

Results

Participants

A total of 527 preoperative patients with a solitary pulmonary solid nodule were gathered from two independent institutions in China, with a median size of 20.0 (IQR, 15.0–24.0) mm and a mean age of 55.9 (SD, 9.8) years, of which 52.9% were male. The training cohort comprised 392 patients from Center-A, with a median size of 20.0 (IQR, 15.0–24.0) mm, a mean age of 55.8 (SD, 9.9) years, and a male representation of 53.3%. The external validation cohort consisted of 135 patients from Center-B, with a median size of 20.0 (IQR, 16.0–24.0) mm, a mean age of 56.4 (SD, 9.6) years, and 51.9% male. All clinical and CT characteristics are summarized in Table 1.Table 1 Characteristic baseline of patients in cohorts.

Characteristics	Total cohort (n = 527)	Training cohort (N = 392)	External validation cohort (N = 135)	P	
Age, mean (SD), years	55.9 ± 9.8	55.8 ± 9.9	56.4 ± 9.6	0.879	
Gender, n(%)				0.769	
Female	248(47.1%)	183(46.7%)	65(48.1%)		
Male	279(52.9%)	209(53.3%)	70(51.9%)		
Histologic Types, n(%)				0.473	
Malignant	201(38.1%)	153(39.0%)	48(35.6%)		
Adenocarcinoma	148(73.6%)	115(75.2%)	33(68.8%)		
Squamous Cell Carcinoma	35(17.4%)	23(15.0%)	12(25.0%)		
Large Cell Carcinoma	18(9.0%)	15(9.8%)	3(6.2%)		
Benign	326(61.9)	239(61.0%)	87(64.4%)		
Pulmonary Hamartoma	118(36.2%)	87(36.4%)	31(35.6%)		
Sclerosing Pneumocytoma	35(10.7%)	27(11.3%)	8(9.2%)		
Tuberculosis	104(31.9%)	74(31.0%)	30(34.5%)		
Inflammatory Pseudotumor	69(21.2%)	51(21.3%)	18(20.7%)		
Size, median (IQR), mm	20.0(15.0–24.0)	20.0(15.0–24.0)	20.0(16.0–24.0)	0.204	
Location_1, n(%)					
Left Upper Lobe	122(23.1%)	96(24.5%)	26(19.3%)		
Left Lower Lobe	93(17.6%)	72(18.4%)	21(15.6%)		
Right Upper Lobe	165(31.3%)	122(31.1%)	43(31.9%)		
Right Middle Lobe	43(8.2%)	28(7.1%)	15(11.1%)		
Right Lower Lobe	104(19.7%)	74(18.9%)	30(22.2%)		
Location_2, n(%)				0.426	
Peripheral	479(90.9%)	354(90.3%)	125(92.6%)		
Central	48(9.1%)	38(9.7%)	10(7.4%)		
Shape, n(%)					
Round/oval	337(63.9%)	251(64.0%)	86(63.7%)		
Irregular	190(36.1%)	141(36.0%)	49(36.3%)		
Margin, n(%)				0.981	
Smooth	123(23.3%)	91(23.2%)	32(23.7%)		
Lobulated	213(40.4%)	158(40.3%)	55(40.7%)		
Spiculated	191(36.2%)	143(36.5%)	48(35.6%)		
Calcification, n(%)				0.624	
No	463(87.9%)	346(88.3%)	117(86.7%)		
Yes	64(12.1%)	46(11.7%)	18(13.3%)		
Fat, n(%)				0.174	
No	490(93.0%)	361(92.1%)	129(95.6%)		
Yes	37(7.0%)	31(7.9%)	6(4.4%)		
Necrosis, n(%)				0.482	
No	491(93.2%)	367(93.6%)	124(91.9%)		
Yes	36(6.8%)	25(6.4%)	11(8.1%)		
Cavitation, n(%)				0.657	
No	455(86.3%)	337(86.0%)	118(87.4%)		
Yes	72(13.7%)	55(14.0%)	17(12.6%)		
Air Bronchograms, n(%)				0.309	
No	462(87.7%)	347(88.5%)	115(85.2%)		
Yes	65(12.3%)	45(11.5%)	20(14.8%)		
Pleural Indentation, n(%)				0.137	
No	208(39.5%)	162(41.3%)	46(34.1%)		
Yes	319(60.5%)	230(58.7%)	89(65.9%)		
Vascular Invasion, n(%)				0.169	
No	445(84.4%)	336(85.7%)	109(80.7%)		
Yes	82(15.6%)	56(14.3%)	26(19.3%)		
Postobstructive Pneumonia, n(%)				0.306	
No	444(84.3%)	334(85.2%)	110(81.5%)		
Yes	83(15.7%)	58(14.8%)	25(18.5%)		
Satellite Nodules, n(%)				0.062	
No	476(90.3%)	360(91.8%)	116(85.9%)		
Yes	51(9.7%)	32(8.2%)	19(14.1%)		
Subjective Enhancement, n(%)				0.054	
No	152(28.8%)	109(27.8%)	43(31.9%)		
Uniform	34(6.5%)	20(5.1%)	14(10.4%)		
Heterogeneous	341(64.7%)	263(67.1%)	78(57.8%)		
CT value, mean (SD), HU					
Plain CT value	22.0 ± 16.2	21.5 ± 16.9	23.5 ± 13.7	0.210	
Enhanced CT value	53.3 ± 30.5	53.0 ± 30.9	53.9 ± 29.7	0.920	
Enhancement difference	31.2 ± 25.2	31.5 ± 24.9	30.4 ± 26.3	0.342	
Enhancement Rate	2.1 ± 6.8	2.3 ± 7.5	1.5 ± 5.8	0.131	

The development of two models for predicting pulmonary nodule malignancy

Three hundred and ninety-two nodules (adenocarcinoma, 115 [75.2%]; squamous cell carcinoma, 23 [15.0%]; large cell carcinoma, 15 [9.8%]); pulmonary hamartoma, 87 [36.4%]; sclerosing pneumocytoma, 27 [11.3%]; tuberculosis, 74 [31.0%]; inflammatory pseudonodule, 51 [21.3%]) were in the training cohort. To compare the diagnosis difference between plain CT and enhanced CT for solid pulmonary nodules. We constructed two logistic regression models that without and with contrast enhanced CT characteristics. In the plain CT model, a total of twenty-one variables were generated, with vascular invasion (1.0877) and pleural indentation (0.5985) being the two most significant variables for predicting nodule malignancy, and fat (− 0.9334) and smooth (− 0.7732) being the two most important variables for predicting nodule benign. In the contrast-enhanced CT model, twenty-five variables were generated, with heterogeneous enhancement (1.8129) and vascular invasion (0.9249) being the two most significant variables for predicting nodule malignancy, and fat (− 0.9425) and round/oval (− 0.7041) being the two most important variables for predicting nodule benign. The detailed variables information of the two models are shown in Tables 2 and 3.Table 2 The relative weight of model 1 (plain CT only) CT characteristics for predicting malignancy.

Feature	Coef	Mean	SD	Relative_to_max	
Vascular_invasion	1.0877	0.1429	0.3499	1	
Pleural_indentation	0.5985	0.5867	0.4924	0.5503	
Age	0.5959	55.7806	9.8904	0.5479	
Diameter(mm)	0.4301	19.4316	5.6907	0.3954	
Air_Bronchograms	0.4159	0.1148	0.3188	0.3824	
Location_2 (0 = Peripheral;1 = Central)	0.3606	0.0969	0.2959	0.3315	
Gender (0 = woman; 1 = man)	0.2665	0.5332	0.4989	0.245	
Postobstructive	0.2201	0.1480	0.3551	0.2024	
Lobulated	0.1858	0.4031	0.4905	0.1709	
Cavitation	0.1522	0.1403	0.3473	0.14	
Plain_CT_Value	0.1308	21.5051	16.9014	0.1202	
Left_upper	0.0762	0.2449	0.4300	0.0701	
Left_lower	0.0453	0.1837	0.3872	0.0417	
Right_middle	− 0.0036	0.0714	0.2575	− 0.0033	
Right_upper	− 0.0918	0.3112	0.4630	− 0.0844	
Necrosis	− 0.301	0.0638	0.2444	− 0.2767	
Calcification	− 0.4927	0.1173	0.3218	− 0.453	
Satellite_Nodules	− 0.6551	0.0816	0.2738	− 0.6023	
Shape (0 = round/oval; 1 = irregular)	− 0.6764	0.3597	0.4799	− 0.6219	
Smooth	− 0.7732	0.2321	0.4222	− 0.7108	
Fat	− 0.9334	0.0791	0.2699	− 0.8582	

Table 3 The relative weight of model 2 (plain + enhanced) CT characteristics for predicting malignancy.

Feature	Coef	Mean	SD	Relative_to_max	
Heterogeneous_enhancement	1.8129	0.6709	0.4699	1	
Vascular_invasion	0.9249	0.1429	0.3499	0.5043	
Pleural_indentation	0.5614	0.5867	0.4924	0.2839	
Age	0.5085	55.7806	9.8904	0.2792	
Lobulated	0.4041	0.4031	0.4905	0.2275	
Air_Bronchograms	0.3918	0.1148	0.3188	0.2114	
Location_2 (0 = Peripheral;1 = Central)	0.3338	0.0969	0.2959	0.1512	
Gender (0 = woman; 1 = man)	0.3022	0.5332	0.4989	0.1637	
Diameter(mm)	0.2285	15.7395	4.9086	0.117	
Left_upper	0.2274	0.2449	0.43	0.1161	
Postobstructive_Pneumonia	0.1317	0.148	0.3551	0.0792	
Cavitation	0.0963	0.1403	0.3473	0.0645	
Left_lower	0.0602	0.1837	0.3872	0.0195	
Plain_CT_Value	0.0056	21.602	16.8444	0.0031	
Right_lower	− 0.0768	0.1888	0.3913	− 0.0599	
Right_upper	− 0.1223	0.3112	0.463	− 0.0645	
Enhanced_CT_Value	− 0.1492	53.0365	30.8263	0.0315	
Enhancement_rate	− 0.2405	2.2591	7.5389	− 0.1541	
Uniform_enhancement	− 0.2553	0.051	0.22	− 0.1354	
Necrosis	− 0.2832	0.0638	0.2444	− 0.1495	
Calcification	− 0.3336	0.1173	0.3218	− 0.1872	
Smooth	− 0.4178	0.2321	0.4222	− 0.2141	
Satellite_Nodules	− 0.4785	0.0816	0.2738	− 0.2581	
Shape (0 = round/oval; 1 = irregular)	− 0.7041	0.3597	0.4799	− 0.3814	
Fat	− 0.9425	0.0791	0.2699	− 0.472	

Classification performance of the two models

The present study reports on the performance of two CT-based models in a training cohort. The model 1 (plain CT only) demonstrated a mean sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, and AUC (95%CI) of 0.85, 0.84, 0.84, 0.77, 0.90, and 0.92 (95%CI, 0.89–0.95), respectively. Model 2 (plain + contrast CT) exhibited a mean sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, and AUC (95%CI) of 0.91, 0.87, 0.88, 0.81, 0.94, and 0.95 (95%CI, 0.93–0.97), respectively. In the external validation cohort, the mean sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, NPV, and AUC (95%CI) of model 1 (plain CT only) were 0.79, 0.78, 0.79, 0.67, 0.87, and 0.88 (95%CI, 0.82–0.93). Model 2 (plain + contrast CT) were 0.88, 0.91, 0.90, 0.84, 0.93, 0.93 (95%CI, 0.88–0.98), respectively. The detailed prediction performance of model 1 and model 2 in two cohorts is shown in Table 4. The AUC curves for the two models in the two cohorts are shown in Fig. 1. Model 2 (plain + contrast CT) showed the highest diagnosis performance, we modeled the model as logistic distribution in the equation shown in Supplementary Materials 1. Examples of the cases are shown in Figs. 2 and 3.Table 4 Classification performance of plain CT-based model and plain & enhanced CT-based model for nodule malignancy in the two cohorts.

Cohort		Prediction	Pathological results (No. %)	Predictive value(NPV/PPV)	AUC (95% CI)	Accuracy (%)	
Benign	Malignant	
Training cohort	Unenhanced CT model	Benign	201(84.1%)	T.N	23(15.0%)	F.N	89.7%	0.92 (0.89–0.95)	84.4	
Malignant	38(15.9%)	F.P	130(85.0%)	T.P	77.4%	
Contrast-enhanced CT model	Benign	207(86.6%)	T.N	14(9.2%)	F.N	93.7%	0.95 (0.93–0.97)	88.3	
Malignant	32(13.4%)	F.P	139(90.5%)	T.P	81.3%	
External Validation Cohort	Unenhanced CT	Benign	68(78.2%)	T.N	10(20.8%)	F.N	87.2%	0.88 (0.82–0.93)	78.5	
Malignant	19(21.8%)	F.P	38(79.2%)	T.P	66.7%	
Contrast-enhanced CT	Benign	79(90.8%)	T.N	6(12.5%)	F.N	92.9%	0.93 (0.88–0.98)	89.6	
Malignant	8(9.2%)	F.P	42(87.5%)	T.P	84.0%	
T.P, true positive; T.N, true negative; F.P, false-positive; F.N, false-negative; NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value; AUC, Area Under Curve.

Fig. 1 The AUC curves of model 1 and model 2 in the two cohorts.

Fig. 2 Examples of malignant case A 58-year-old female patient with a 25mm diameter, peripheral, irregular, lobulated, cavitation, pleural indentation lesion located in the left lower lobe. The mean density of the nodule was 41 HU on plain CT and 64 HU after contrast (heterogeneous enhancement). Model malignancy classification scores: Malignant (73.52%); Benign (26.48%). Histology: Adenocarcinoma.

Fig. 3 Examples of benign case A 50-year-old female patient with a 16 mm diameter, peripheral, round, smooth lesion located in the right lower lobe. The mean density of the nodule was 36 HU on plain CT and 100 HU after contrast (uniform enhancement). Model malignancy classification scores: Malignant (0.08%); Benign (99.92%). Histology: Sclerosing pneumocytoma.

Discussion

Our dual-center study demonstrated that model 2 (plain + contrast CT ) with twenty-five CT variables which include four contrast-enhanced variables (enhanced CT value, enhancement rate, uniform enhancement, heterogeneous enhancement) had better prediction performance (0.93 [95%CI, 0.88–0.98]) than model 1 (plain CT only) (0.88 [95%CI, 0.82–0.93]) for solitary solid pulmonary nodules.

Various models, including the Mayo Clinic model, the Veterans Affairs (VA) model, and the Brock model (PanCan model), have been developed utilizing clinical and CT characteristics to assess the malignancy of lung nodules20–22. The Mayo Clinic model identified age, smoking history, cancer history, nodule diameter, spiculation, and upper lobe as predictors of malignant nodules20. The Brock model was developed to detect malignancy in nodules through low-dose CT screenings, utilizing predictors such as age, sex, family history of lung cancer, nodule location, emphysema, nodule size, and spiculation21. The Veterans Affairs utilized logistic regression to design a model specifically for solitary nodules, estimating the likelihood of malignancy based on factors such as age, nodule diameter, smoking history, and time since quitting smoking22. However, prior research has demonstrated that while these models exhibit strong performance on their respective datasets, their utility for detecting large lung nodules is limited, necessitating optimization of model characteristics before clinical application23–27. Our study showed similar relative variables for predicting nodule malignancy in the model, like nodule location, nodule diameter, shape, age, and gender. Furthermore, our model incorporates a greater number of semantic features, such as air bronchogram, pleural indentation, vascular invasion, postobstructive pneumonia, cavitation, necrosis, calcification, satellite nodules, and fat, as well as enhancement characteristics such as enhanced CT value, enhancement rate, uniform enhancement, and heterogeneous enhancement. The importance of semantic features has already been proved by previous study28. Xiang et al. showed six radiological characteristics (diameter, lobulation, calcification, spiculation, pleural indentation, and vascular invasion) were adopted as important predictors in their SVM model for the diagnosis of solid solitary pulmonary nodules with AUC 0.89. Our model 2 (plain + contrast CT) showed a higher AUC of 0.93 since we included more semantic features and enhancement characteristics (enhanced CT value, enhancement rate, uniform enhancement, heterogeneous enhancement).

The significance of CT enhancement level in the determination of malignancy in lung solid nodules has been established18,29. A lack of significant enhancement on contrast-enhanced CT (< 15HU) is indicative of a benign nodule. Consequently, contrast-enhanced CT has been widely utilized as the primary imaging examination technique before surgery, particularly in less developed nations12. Our study showed a logistic regression model based on plain CT only for predicting malignancy of solitary solid pulmonary nodules with sensitivity 0.85, specificity 0.84, and diagnostic accuracy 0.84 in the training cohort and 0.79, 0.78, 0.79 in the external validation cohort. When we added contrast-enhanced CT features into the model, it improved the diagnosis performance with a sensitivity of 0.91, specificity of 0.87, and diagnostic accuracy of 0.88 in the training cohort and 0.88, 0.91, and 0.90 in the external validation cohort. A study showed the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of radiologists are approximately 0.76, 0.73, and 0.88 in a Chinese dedicated cancer hospital24. This means that compared with the subjective experience of radiologists, our model 2 has a 12% higher sensitivity and 18% higher specificity for diagnosing lung cancer. It effectively reduces the missed diagnosis of lung cancer and avoids excessive surgery caused by misdiagnosis. This again suggests enhanced CT could be the basis for solitary solid pulmonary nodules preoperative diagnosis especially when preoperative biopsy and PET-CT are not applicable. At the same time, due to the use of iodinated contrast agents, increases the risk of patient allergies and contrast-induced nephropathy. Developing more safe and lung cancer-specific contrast agents in the future is a direction for improving enhanced CT application.

The present study has identified certain limitations. Firstly, model 2 (plain + contrast CT) utilized in the study comprises only fundamental clinical information such as age and gender, while other factors such as smoking history, cancer history, and family history of cancer are worth considering for inclusion. Secondly, the enhanced CT values ​​used in the model are affected by scanning parameters, different contrast agent concentrations, and scanning time. Therefore, it is necessary to study the differences in enhancement characteristics between different CT equipment in the future. The study data solely comprised clinical patients, and thus, the efficacy of the model for lung cancer screening patients requires further verification. Additionally, the evaluation of the model was restricted to two datasets, and therefore, additional validation at various centers is necessary before its clinical application.

To conclude, a logistic regression model was constructed utilizing plain + contrast-enhanced CT characteristics, exhibiting superior efficacy in the assessment of malignancy in solitary solid lung nodules when compared to only plain CT-based models. The utilization of this model 2 (plain + contrast CT) enables radiologists to provide recommendations concerning follow-up or surgical intervention for preoperative patients presenting with solid lung nodules.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-72592-9.

Author contributions

W.Z., J.W., W.Z. and J.M.: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing—Original Draf, Formal analysis; J.W.: Statistical analysis; S.C.: Writing—Review & Editing; J.Y.: Writing—Review & Editing, Project administration; Z.L.: Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision; X.C.: Validation, Writing—Review & Editing; J.N.: Investigation, Supervision, Project administration.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author, sxlscjy@163.com, upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

These authors contributed equally: Wenjia Zhang, Xiaonan Cui and Jing Wang.
==== Refs
References

1. Martín-Sánchez JC Projections in breast and lung cancer mortality among women: A Bayesian analysis of 52 countries worldwide Cancer Res. 2018 78 4436 4442 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-0187 30068667
Martín-Sánchez, J. C. et al. Projections in breast and lung cancer mortality among women: A Bayesian analysis of 52 countries worldwide. Cancer Res. 78, 4436–4442 (2018).30068667
2. Chen W Cancer statistics in China, 2015 CA: Cancer J. Clin. 2016 66 115 132 26808342
Chen, W. et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA: Cancer J. Clin. 66, 115–132 (2016).26808342
3. Oudkerk M European position statement on lung cancer screening Lancet Oncol. 2017 18 e754 e766 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30861-6 29208441
Oudkerk, M. et al. European position statement on lung cancer screening. Lancet Oncol. 18, e754–e766 (2017).29208441
4. Liang W Chinese multi-institutional registry (CMIR) for resected non-small cell lung cancer: survival analysis of 5,853 cases J. Thorac. Dis. 2013 5 726 729 24409347
Liang, W. et al. Chinese multi-institutional registry (CMIR) for resected non-small cell lung cancer: survival analysis of 5,853 cases. J. Thorac. Dis. 5, 726–729 (2013).24409347
5. Yang WJ Community-based lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in China: Results of the baseline screening Lung Cancer 2018 117 20 26 10.1016/j.lungcan.2018.01.003 29496251
Yang, W. J. et al. Community-based lung cancer screening with low-dose CT in China: Results of the baseline screening. Lung Cancer 117, 20–26 (2018).29496251
6. Callister ME British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules Thorax 2015 70 Suppl 2 1 54 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2015-207168 25103011
Callister, M. E. et al. British Thoracic Society guidelines for the investigation and management of pulmonary nodules. Thorax 70(Suppl 2), 1–54 (2015).25103011
7. Travis WD International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma J. Thorac. Oncol. 2011 6 244 285 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221 21252716
Travis, W. D. et al. International association for the study of lung cancer/american thoracic society/european respiratory society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J. Thorac. Oncol. 6, 244–285 (2011).21252716
8. Travis WD The 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung tumors: impact of genetic, Clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification J. Thorac. Oncol. 2015 10 1243 1260 10.1097/JTO.0000000000000630 26291008
Travis, W. D. et al. The 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung tumors: impact of genetic, Clinical and radiologic advances since the 2004 classification. J. Thorac. Oncol. 10, 1243–1260 (2015).26291008
9. Aberle DR Adams AM Berg CD Black WC Clapp JD Fagerstrom RM Sicks JD Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening New Engl J Med 2011 365 5 395 409 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873 21714641
Aberle, D. R. et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. New Engl J Med 365(5), 395–409 (2011).21714641
10. Lung, C. Screening Reporting And Data System (Lung-RADS). American College of Radiology. See https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Reporting-and-Data-Systems/Lung-Rads (last checked 18 January 2021) (2019).
11. Yaguang F China national guideline of classification, diagnosis and Treatment for lung nodules (2016 version) Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi 2016 19 793 27978863
Yaguang, F. et al. China national guideline of classification, diagnosis and Treatment for lung nodules (2016 version). Zhongguo Fei Ai Za Zhi 19, 793 (2016).27978863
12. Cui X Clinical characteristics and work-up of small to intermediate-sized pulmonary nodules in a Chinese dedicated cancer hospital Cancer Boil. Med. 2020 17 199 10.20892/j.issn.2095-3941.2019.0028
Cui, X. et al. Clinical characteristics and work-up of small to intermediate-sized pulmonary nodules in a Chinese dedicated cancer hospital. Cancer Boil. Med. 17, 199 (2020).
13. Ozeki N Therapeutic surgery without a definitive diagnosis can be an option in selected patients with suspected lung cancer Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2014 19 830 837 10.1093/icvts/ivu233 25038121
Ozeki, N. et al. Therapeutic surgery without a definitive diagnosis can be an option in selected patients with suspected lung cancer. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 19, 830–837 (2014).25038121
14. Merritt RE Shrager JB Indications for surgery in patients with localized pulmonary infection Thorac. Surg. Clin. 2012 22 325 332 10.1016/j.thorsurg.2012.05.005 22789596
Merritt, R. E. & Shrager, J. B. Indications for surgery in patients with localized pulmonary infection. Thorac. Surg. Clin. 22, 325–332 (2012).22789596
15. Tanner NT Physician assessment of pretest probability of malignancy and adherence with guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation Chest 2017 152 263 270 10.1016/j.chest.2017.01.018 28115167
Tanner, N. T. et al. Physician assessment of pretest probability of malignancy and adherence with guidelines for pulmonary nodule evaluation. Chest 152, 263–270 (2017).28115167
16. Choi Y Comparing attenuations of malignant and benign solitary pulmonary nodule using semi-automated region of interest selection on contrast-enhanced CT J. Thorac. Dis. 2019 11 2392 2401 10.21037/jtd.2019.05.56 31372276
Choi, Y. et al. Comparing attenuations of malignant and benign solitary pulmonary nodule using semi-automated region of interest selection on contrast-enhanced CT. J. Thorac. Dis. 11, 2392–2401 (2019).31372276
17. Swensen SJ Lung nodule enhancement at CT: Multicenter study Radiology 2000 214 73 80 10.1148/radiology.214.1.r00ja1473 10644104
Swensen, S. J. et al. Lung nodule enhancement at CT: Multicenter study. Radiology 214, 73–80 (2000).10644104
18. Schillaci O Accuracy of early and delayed FDG PET-CT and of contrast-enhanced CT in the evaluation of lung nodules: a preliminary study on 30 patients Radiol. Med. 2009 114 890 906 10.1007/s11547-009-0400-z 19579015
Schillaci, O. et al. Accuracy of early and delayed FDG PET-CT and of contrast-enhanced CT in the evaluation of lung nodules: a preliminary study on 30 patients. Radiol. Med. 114, 890–906 (2009).19579015
19. McLaren CE Chen W-P Nie K Su M-Y Prediction of malignant breast lesions from MRI features: a comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression techniques Acad. Radiol. 2009 16 842 851 10.1016/j.acra.2009.01.029 19409817
McLaren, C. E., Chen, W.-P., Nie, K. & Su, M.-Y. Prediction of malignant breast lesions from MRI features: a comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression techniques. Acad. Radiol. 16, 842–851 (2009).19409817
20. Swensen SJ Silverstein MD Ilstrup DM Schleck CD Edell ES The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules Application to small radiologically indeterminate nodules Arch. Intern. Med. 1997 157 849 855 10.1001/archinte.1997.00440290031002 9129544
Swensen, S. J., Silverstein, M. D., Ilstrup, D. M., Schleck, C. D. & Edell, E. S. The probability of malignancy in solitary pulmonary nodules Application to small radiologically indeterminate nodules. Arch. Intern. Med. 157, 849–855 (1997).9129544
21. McWilliams A Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT New Engl. J. Med. 2013 369 910 919 10.1056/NEJMoa1214726 24004118
McWilliams, A. et al. Probability of cancer in pulmonary nodules detected on first screening CT. New Engl. J. Med. 369, 910–919 (2013).24004118
22. Gould MK Ananth L Barnett PG A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules Chest 2007 131 383 388 10.1378/chest.06-1261 17296637
Gould, M. K., Ananth, L. & Barnett, P. G. A clinical model to estimate the pretest probability of lung cancer in patients with solitary pulmonary nodules. Chest 131, 383–388 (2007).17296637
23. Hammer MM Nachiappan AC Barbosa Jr EJM Limited utility of pulmonary nodule risk calculators for managing large nodules Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 2018 47 23 27 10.1067/j.cpradiol.2017.04.003 28571906
Hammer, M. M., Nachiappan, A. C. & Barbosa Jr, E. J. M. Limited utility of pulmonary nodule risk calculators for managing large nodules. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol. 47, 23–27 (2018).28571906
24. Cui X Comparison of Veterans Affairs, Mayo, Brock classification models and radiologist diagnosis for classifying the malignancy of pulmonary nodules in Chinese clinical population Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 2019 8 605 10.21037/tlcr.2019.09.17 31737497
Cui, X. et al. Comparison of Veterans Affairs, Mayo, Brock classification models and radiologist diagnosis for classifying the malignancy of pulmonary nodules in Chinese clinical population. Transl. Lung Cancer Res. 8, 605 (2019).31737497
25. Zhang X Comparison of three mathematical prediction models in patients with a solitary pulmonary nodule Chin. J. Cancer Res. 2014 26 647 25561761
Zhang, X. et al. Comparison of three mathematical prediction models in patients with a solitary pulmonary nodule. Chin. J. Cancer Res. 26, 647 (2014).25561761
26. Yang B Comparison of four models predicting the malignancy of pulmonary nodules: A single-center study of Korean adults PLoS One 2018 13 e0201242 10.1371/journal.pone.0201242 30063725
Yang, B. et al. Comparison of four models predicting the malignancy of pulmonary nodules: A single-center study of Korean adults. PLoS One 13, e0201242 (2018).30063725
27. Susam S Comparison of Brock University, Mayo Clinic and Herder models for pretest probability of cancer in solid pulmonary nodules Clin. Respir. J. 2022 16 11 740 749 10.1111/crj.13546 36207775
Susam, S. et al. Comparison of Brock University, Mayo Clinic and Herder models for pretest probability of cancer in solid pulmonary nodules. Clin. Respir. J. 16(11), 740–749 (2022).36207775
28. Xiang Y Development and validation of a predictive model for the diagnosis of solid solitary pulmonary nodules using data mining methods J. Thorac. Dis. 2019 11 950 10.21037/jtd.2019.01.90 31019785
Xiang, Y. et al. Development and validation of a predictive model for the diagnosis of solid solitary pulmonary nodules using data mining methods. J. Thorac. Dis. 11, 950 (2019).31019785
29. Revel M-P Software volumetric evaluation of doubling times for differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006 187 135 142 10.2214/AJR.05.1228 16794167
Revel, M.-P. et al. Software volumetric evaluation of doubling times for differentiating benign versus malignant pulmonary nodules. Am. J. Roentgenol. 187, 135–142 (2006).16794167
