Establishing and validation of the VBV score for assessing Lung ground-glass nodules based on high-resolution computed tomography
Background
The widespread utilization of chest High-resolution Computed Tomography (HRCT) has prompted detection of pulmonary ground-glass nodules (GGNs) in otherwise asymptomatic individuals. We aimed to establish a simple clinical risk score model for assessing GGNs based on HRCT.
Methods
We retrospectively analyzed 574 GGNs in 574 patients undergoing HOOK-WIRE puncture and pulmonary nodule surgery from January 2014 to November 2018. Clinical characteristics and imaging features of the GGNs were assessed. We analyzed the differences between malignant and benign nodules using binary logistic regression analysis and constructed a simple risk score model, the VBV Score, for predicting the malignancy status of GGNs. Then, we validated this model via other 1200 GGNs in 1041 patients collected from three independent clinical centers in 2022.
Results
For the exploratory phase of this study, out of the 574 GGNs, 481 were malignant and 93 were benign. Vacuole sign, air bronchogram, and intra-nodular vessel sign were important indicators of malignancy in GGNs. Then, we derived a VBV Score = vacuole sign + air bronchogram + intra-nodular vessel sign, to predict the malignancy of GGNs, with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95.6%, 80.6%, and 93.2%, respectively. We also validated it on other 1200 GGNs, with a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 96.0%, 82.6%, and 95.0%, respectively.
Conclusions
Vacuole sign, air bronchogram, and intra-nodular vessel sign were important indicators of malignancy in GGNs. VBV Score showed good sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for differentiating benign and malignant pulmonary GGNs.
Top-30
Journals
|
1
|
|
|
Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology
1 publication, 33.33%
|
|
|
Integrative Cancer Therapies
1 publication, 33.33%
|
|
|
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
1 publication, 33.33%
|
|
|
1
|
Publishers
|
1
|
|
|
World Scientific
1 publication, 33.33%
|
|
|
SAGE
1 publication, 33.33%
|
|
|
Elsevier
1 publication, 33.33%
|
|
|
1
|
- We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
- Statistics recalculated weekly.