Original Article
Automatic Lung-RADS™ classification with a natural language processing system
Abstract
Background: Our aim was to train a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm to capture imaging characteristics of lung nodules reported in a structured CT report and suggest the applicable Lung-RADS™ (LR) category.
Methods: Our study included structured, clinical reports of consecutive CT lung screening (CTLS) exams performed from 08/2014 to 08/2015 at an ACR accredited Lung Cancer Screening Center. All patients screened were at high-risk for lung cancer according to the NCCN Guidelines®. All exams were interpreted by one of three radiologists credentialed to read CTLS exams using LR using a standard reporting template. Training and test sets consisted of consecutive exams. Lung screening exams were divided into two groups: three training sets (500, 120, and 383 reports each) and one final evaluation set (498 reports). NLP algorithm results were compared with the gold standard of LR category assigned by the radiologist.
Results: The sensitivity/specificity of the NLP algorithm to correctly assign LR categories for suspicious nodules (LR 4) and positive nodules (LR 3/4) were 74.1%/98.6% and 75.0%/98.8% respectively. The majority of mismatches occurred in cases where pulmonary findings were present not currently addressed by LR. Misclassifications also resulted from the failure to identify exams as follow-up and the failure to completely characterize part-solid nodules. In a sub-group analysis among structured reports with standardized language, the sensitivity and specificity to detect LR 4 nodules were 87.0% and 99.5%, respectively.
Conclusions: An NLP system can accurately suggest the appropriate LR category from CTLS exam findings when standardized reporting is used.
Methods: Our study included structured, clinical reports of consecutive CT lung screening (CTLS) exams performed from 08/2014 to 08/2015 at an ACR accredited Lung Cancer Screening Center. All patients screened were at high-risk for lung cancer according to the NCCN Guidelines®. All exams were interpreted by one of three radiologists credentialed to read CTLS exams using LR using a standard reporting template. Training and test sets consisted of consecutive exams. Lung screening exams were divided into two groups: three training sets (500, 120, and 383 reports each) and one final evaluation set (498 reports). NLP algorithm results were compared with the gold standard of LR category assigned by the radiologist.
Results: The sensitivity/specificity of the NLP algorithm to correctly assign LR categories for suspicious nodules (LR 4) and positive nodules (LR 3/4) were 74.1%/98.6% and 75.0%/98.8% respectively. The majority of mismatches occurred in cases where pulmonary findings were present not currently addressed by LR. Misclassifications also resulted from the failure to identify exams as follow-up and the failure to completely characterize part-solid nodules. In a sub-group analysis among structured reports with standardized language, the sensitivity and specificity to detect LR 4 nodules were 87.0% and 99.5%, respectively.
Conclusions: An NLP system can accurately suggest the appropriate LR category from CTLS exam findings when standardized reporting is used.
