Prospective study integrates imaging parameters and features to assess tumor microenvironment in NSCLC, suggesting new approaches for immunotherapy stratification.
Background The non-invasive characterization of the tumor microenvironment (TME) is essential for stratifying non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who may benefit from immunotherapy. This study investigates a novel approach by integrating dual-energy CT (DECT) parameters with radiomics to quantitatively assess stromal fibrosis (via α -SMA area) and CD8 + T-cell infiltration. Methods In this prospective study, 70 treatment-naive NSCLC patients were enrolled. Preoperative DECT scans were used to extract both DECT parameters and radiomics features. Corresponding surgical specimens were analyzed to determine the area percentage of α -SMA-positive stroma and the density of CD8 + T cells, with patients classified into high and low groups for each biomarker. After feature selection, models were constructed based on DECT parameters alone, radiomics features alone, and a combined feature set. Models were evaluated via 5-fold cross-validation. Results For predicting high α -SMA expression, the integrated model combining DECT parameters and radiomics features demonstrated superior performance (AUC: 0.766) compared to models using either modality alone (DECT AUC: 0.670; radiomics AUC: 0.703). In contrast, for predicting CD8 + T-cell density, the DECT-only model (AUC: 0.715) performed comparably to the radiomics model (AUC: 0.695), with no significant gain from integration. Key discriminating features, such as normalized iodine concentration for α -SMA and spectral slope of K40-70 for CD8+, showed significant intergroup differences and plausible biological correlations. Conclusion The integration of DECT and radiomics presents a feasible, non-invasive strategy to assess specific TME components in NSCLC, underscoring the complementary value of different imaging data types towards developing biomarkers for personalized oncology.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: