Cited by 54Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies

Patterns of Metastatic Disease in Patients with Cancer Derived from Natural Language Processing of Structured CT Radiology Reports over a 10-year Period

Open access
Do, Richard K. G., Lupton, Kaelan, Causa Andrieu, Pamela I., Luthra, Anisha, Taya, Michio, Batch, Karen, Nguyen, Huy, Rahurkar, Prachi +10 more·2021·Radiology

Abstract

Background Patterns of metastasis in cancer are increasingly relevant to prognostication and treatment planning but have historically been documented by means of autopsy series. Purpose To show the feasibility of using natural language processing (NLP) to gather accurate data from radiology reports for assessing spatial and temporal patterns of metastatic spread in a large patient cohort. Materials and Methods In this retrospective longitudinal study, consecutive patients who underwent CT from July 2009 to April 2019 and whose CT reports followed a departmental structured template were included. Three radiologists manually curated a sample of 2219 reports for the presence or absence of metastases across 13 organs; these manually curated reports were used to develop three NLP models with an 80%-20% split for training and test sets. A separate random sample of 448 manually curated reports was used for validation. Model performance was measured by accuracy, precision, and recall for each organ. The best-performing NLP model was used to generate a final database of metastatic disease across all patients. For each cancer type, statistical descriptive reports were provided by analyzing the frequencies of metastatic disease at the report and patient levels. Results In 91 665 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 61 years ± 15; 46 939 women), 387 359 reports were labeled. The best-performing NLP model achieved accuracies from 90% to 99% across all organs. Metastases were most frequently reported in abdominopelvic (23.6% of all reports) and thoracic (17.6%) nodes, followed by lungs (14.7%), liver (13.7%), and bones (9.9%). Metastatic disease tropism is distinct among common cancers, with the most common first site being bones in prostate and breast cancers and liver among pancreatic and colorectal cancers. Conclusion Natural language processing may be applied to cancer patients' CT reports to generate a large database of metastatic phenotypes. Such a database could be combined with genomic studies and used to explore prognostic imaging phenotypes with relevance to treatment planning. © RSNA, 2021

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2021210043

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Our approach, using a single model, contrasts with similar studies on metastatic disease that employ multiple models.

    “Our approach, using a single model, contrasts with similar studies on metastatic disease that employ multiple models35, offering potential for new insights into disease progression pathways that have not been thoroughly explored yet.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 54

Authors
Do, R. K. G., Lupton, K., Causa Andrieu, P. I., Luthra, A., Taya, M., Batch, K., Nguyen, H., Rahurkar, P., Gazit, L., Nicholas, K., Fong, C. J., Gangai, N., Schultz, N., Zulkernine, F., Sevilimedu, V., Juluru, K., Simpson, A., & Hricak, H.
Affiliations
  • From the Department of Radiology (R.K.G.D., P.I.C.A., M.T., N.G., K.J., H.H.), Human Pathology and Pathogenesis Program, Center for Molecular Oncology (A.L.), Department of Strategy and Innovation (H.N., P.R., L.G., K.N.), and Biostatistics Service, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.J.F., N.S., V.S.), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, New York, NY 10065; and School of Computing, Queens University, Kingston, Canada (K.L., K.B., F.Z., A.S.).
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Venue
Radiology
Published
2021-10
Volume
301
Issue
1
Pages
115-122
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W3189476076
Cited by
54
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Radiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P30 CA008748)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30 CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Keywords
metastasis, metastatic patterns, natural language processing, metastatic tropism, structured radiology reports, prostate cancer, breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, colorectal cancer, lung metastasis, liver metastasis, bone metastasis
MeSH terms
Data Management, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Natural Language Processing, Neoplasm Metastasis, Neoplasms, Retrospective Studies, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review