Retrospective study shows that super-resolution CT radiomics classifies PD-L1 expression in lung adenocarcinoma, highlighting the utility of machine learning for personalized immunotherapy.
Abstract Objectives To explore the potential of super-resolution CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics analysis for the trinary classification of PD-L1 status in lung adenocarcinoma with a diameter of ≥ 1cm, aiming to enhance the accuracy of PD-L1 status determination and support the development of personalized treatment strategies. Materials and methods Between 2016 and 2024, 949 lung adenocarcinoma patients was divided into three PD-L1 status groups, including TPS- (n = 519), TPS+ (n = 324), and TPS++ (n = 106). Clinical data were collected, and radiomics features were extracted from intratumoral and peritumoral regions using super-resolution CT images. After feature selection, Intra-Radio model, Peri-Radio model, and Intra/Peri-Radio model was developed using machine learning algorithms. Results Significant differences were found in gender ( P < 0.05), smoke ( P = 0.008), age ( P = 0.035), and diameter ( P < 0.05). The multi-layer perceptron (MLP) algorithm showed the highest accuracy (0.651 and 0.512 in the training and testing groups). The Intra/Peri-Radio model using MLP achieved micro AUC values of 0.826 (95%CI: 0.808 to 0.845) in the training group and 0.713 (95%CI: 0.678 to 0.748) in the testing group, and macro AUC values of 0.818 (95%CI: 0.781 to 0.853) in the training group and 0.660 (95%CI: 0.587 to 0.728) in the testing group. The Intra-Radio and Peri-Radio models based on MLP showed similar micro and macro AUC values, which were lower than those of Intra/Peri-Radio model. Conclusions Super-resolution CT-based intratumoral and peritumoral radiomics analysis effectively classified PD-L1 status in lung adenocarcinoma ≥ 1cm. MLP-based Intra/Peri-Radio model demonstrated strong performance, highlighting the potential of radiomics and machine learning for personalized treatments.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: