Figures
- FIGURE 1
Flow chart showing the different groups. NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer.
- FIGURE 2
Combined receiver operating characteristic curve showing four predictive algorithms: logistic regression clinical variables, single Aeonose value, extended artificial neural network (ANN) and logistic regression including Aeonose value.
Tables
- TABLE 1
Clinical characteristics of subjects
Confirmed NSCLC Total control group Suspected, proven negative Healthy volunteer p-value Subjects n 138 143 59 84 Age years 67.1±9.1 62.1±7.0 65.2±8.8 59.8±4.3 <0.001¶ Males 80 (58.0%) 58 (40.6%) 31 (52.5%) 27 (32.1%) <0.001+ Smoking status Current smokers 49 (35.5%) 19 (13.3%) 13 (22.0%) 6 (7.1%) <0.001+ Ex-smokers 82 (59.4%) 76 (53.1%) 32 (54.2%) 44 (52.4%) Never-smokers 7 (5.1%) 48 (33.6%) 14 (23.7%) 34 (40.5%) Smoking exposure pack-years 0 7 (5.1%) 48 (33.6%) 14 (23.7%) 34 (40.5%) 1–20 30 (21.7%) 53 (37.1%) 18 (30.5%) 35 (41.7%) <0.001+ 21–40 53 (38.4%) 25 (17.5%) 17 (28.8%) 8 (9.5%) >40 48 (34.8%) 17 (11.9%) 10 (16.9%) 7 (8.3%) COPD 66 (47.8%) 22 (15.4%) 21 (35.6%) 1 (1.2%) <0.001+ BMI kg·m−2 25.6±4.6 25.9±4.8 26.9±5.9 25.2±3.8 0.104 Type of NSCLC Adenocarcinoma 88 (63.8%) Squamous cell carcinoma 41 (29.7%) Large cell carcinoma 4 (2.9%) NOS 5 (3.6%) NSCLC stage# I 25 (14.5%) II 15 (10.8%) III 39 (28.3%) IV 64 (46.4%) Data are presented as mean±sd or n (%), unless otherwise stated. NSCLC: non-small cell lung cancer; BMI: body mass index; NOS: not otherwise specified.#: according to the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM staging system; ¶: after Games–Howell correction, there was a significant difference between healthy volunteers and confirmed NSCLC and healthy volunteers and suspected, proven negative subjects; +: after Holm–Bonferroni correction, there was a significant difference between healthy volunteers and confirmed NSCLC and suspected proven negative subjects.
- TABLE 2
Results of the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses for diagnosing lung cancer
Variable Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis β# Sex 2.01 (1.26–3.20) 1.42 (0.76–2.58) 0.34 Age 1.08 (1.05–1.11) 1.05 (1.02–1.09) 0.05 BMI 0.99 (0.94–1.04) − Smoking status − Current smoker 17.49 (6.79–45.06) Ex-smoker 7.56 (3.23–17.69) Never smoked Ref. Smoking exposure pack-years 0 Ref. Ref. 1–20 3.88 (1.56–9.65) 3.48 (1.25–9.66) 1.25 21–40 14.77 (5.89–37.04) 10.20 (3.66–28.46) 2.32 >40 19.36 (7.36–50.91) 11.69 (4.04–33.87) 2.46 COPD 4.90 (2.80–8.58) 2.29 (1.18–4.43) 0.83 Diabetes mellitus 0.70 (0.30–1.64) − Aeonose classification value [13] 24.20 (9.71–60.33) 12.67 (4.48–35.83) 2.54 Data are presented as odds ratio (95% confidence interval) unless otherwise stated. β: regression coefficient. BMI: body mass index; −: not added to the multivariate model. #: constant −5.54.
- TABLE 3
Diagnostic performance of the three investigated prediction models
Positive/negative Optimal cut-off Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV AUC-ROC (95% CI) Clinical variables only 138/143 0.32 93.5% 50.0% 64.5% 88.8% 0.80 (0.75–0.85) Aeonose result only 138/143 −0.38 94.2% 44.1% 61.9% 88.7% 0.75 (0.69–0.81) Multivariate logistic regression model 138/143 0.27 95.7% 59.7% 69.5% 92.5% 0.86 (0.81–0.90) Extended ANN 138/143 −0.65 94.2% 49.0% 64.0% 89.7% 0.84 (0.79–0.89) PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value; AUC-ROC: area under the receiver operating curve; ANN: artificial neural network.
