Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer: Additive Value of Radiomics of Breast Parenchyma.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Li H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6445042 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) has never been revealed by preoperative scans. It is necessary to use digital mammography in predicting LVI in patients with breast cancer preoperatively. METHODS:Overall 122 cases of invasive ductal carcinoma diagnosed between May 2017 and September 2018 were enrolled and assigned into the LVI positive group (n?=?42) and the LVI negative group (n?=?80). Independent t-test and ?2 test were performed. RESULTS:Difference in Ki-67 between the two groups was statistically significant (P?=?0.012). Differences in interstitial edema (P?=?0.013) and skin thickening (P?=?0.000) were statistically significant between the two groups. Multiple factor analysis showed that there were three independent risk factors for LVI: interstitial edema (odds ratio [OR]?=?12.610; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.061-149.922; P?=?0.045), blurring of subcutaneous fat (OR?=?0.081; 95% CI: 0.012-0.645; P?=?0.017) and skin thickening (OR?=?9.041; 95% CI: 2.553-32.022; P?=?0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Interstitial edema, blurring of subcutaneous fat, and skin thickening are independent risk factors for LVI. The specificity of LVI prediction is as high as 98.8% when the three are used together.
| S-EPMC7119272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to predict molecular subtypes of breast cancer using radiomics signatures extracted from synthetic mammography reconstructed from digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT). A total of 365 patients with invasive breast cancer with three different molecular subtypes (luminal A + B, luminal; HER2-positive, HER2; triple-negative, TN) were assigned to the training set and temporally independent validation cohort. A total of 129 radiomics features were extracted from synthetic mammograms. The radiomics signature was built using the elastic-net approach. Clinical features included patient age, lesion size and image features assessed by radiologists. In the validation cohort, the radiomics signature yielded an AUC of 0.838, 0.556, and 0.645 for the TN, HER2 and luminal subtypes, respectively. In a multivariate analysis, the radiomics signature was the only independent predictor of the molecular subtype. The combination of the radiomics signature and clinical features showed significantly higher AUC values than clinical features only for distinguishing the TN subtype. In conclusion, the radiomics signature showed high performance for distinguishing TN breast cancer. Radiomics signatures may serve as biomarkers for TN breast cancer and may help to determine the direction of treatment for these patients.
| S-EPMC7726048 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study aims to build radiomics model of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 and 5 mammographic masses extracted from digital mammography (DM) for mammographic masses characterization by using a sensitivity threshold similar to that of biopsy.Materials and methodsThis retrospective study included 288 female patients (age, 52.41 ± 10.31) who had BI-RADS category 4 or 5 mammographic masses with an indication for biopsy. The patients were divided into two temporal set (training set, 82 malignancies and 110 benign lesions; independent test set, 48 malignancies and 48 benign lesions). A total of 188 radiomics features were extracted from mammographic masses on the combination of craniocaudal (CC) position images and mediolateral oblique (MLO) position images. For the training set, Pearson's correlation and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) were used to select non-redundant radiomics features and useful radiomics features, respectively, and support vector machine (SVM) was applied to construct a radiomics model. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the classification performance of the radiomics model and to determine a threshold value with a sensitivity higher than 98% to predict the mammographic masses malignancy. For independent test set, identical threshold value was used to validate the classification performance of the radiomics model. The stability of the radiomics model was evaluated by using a fivefold cross-validation method, and two breast radiologists assessed the diagnostic agreement of the radiomics model.ResultsIn the training set, the radiomics model obtained an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.934 [95% confidence intervals (95% CI), 0.898-0.971], a sensitivity of 98.8% (81/82), a threshold of 0.22, and a specificity of 60% (66/110). In the test set, the radiomics model obtained an AUC of 0.901 (95% CI, 0.835-0.961), a sensitivity of 95.8% (46/48), and a specificity of 66.7% (32/48). The radiomics model had relatively stable sensitivities in fivefold cross-validation (training set, 97.39% ± 3.9%; test set, 98.7% ± 4%).ConclusionThe radiomics method based on DM may help reduce the temporarily unnecessary invasive biopsies for benign mammographic masses over-classified in BI-RADS category 4 and 5 while providing similar diagnostic performance for malignant mammographic masses as biopsies.
| S-EPMC9012139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOur objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the breast cancer detection rate (CDR), invasive CDR, recall rate, and positive predictive value 1 (PPV1) of digital mammography (DM) alone, combined digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and DM, combined DBT and synthetic 2-dimensional mammography (S2D), and DBT alone.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched until April 2020 to identify comparative design studies reporting on patients undergoing routine breast cancer screening. Random effects model proportional meta-analyses estimated CDR, invasive CDR, recall rate, and PPV1. Meta-regression modeling was used to compare imaging modalities. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 2 606 296 patients (13 003 breast cancer cases) were included. CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (6.36 per 1000 screened, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.62 to 7.14, P < .001), and combined DBT and S2D (7.40 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 6.49 to 8.37, P < .001) compared with DM alone (4.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.28 to 5.11). Invasive CDR was highest in combined DBT and DM (4.53 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.97 to 5.12, P = .003) and combined DBT and S2D (5.68 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 4.43 to 7.09, P < .001) compared with DM alone (3.42 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 3.02 to 3.83). Recall rate was lowest in combined DBT and S2D (42.3 per 1000 screened, 95% CI = 37.4 to 60.4, P<.001). PPV1 was highest in combined DBT and DM (10.0%, 95% CI = 8.0% to 12.0%, P = .004), and combined DBT and S2D (16.0%, 95% CI = 10.0% to 23.0%, P < .001), whereas no difference was detected for DBT alone (7.0%, 95% CI = 6.0% to 8.0%, P = .75) compared with DM alone (7.0%, 95.0% CI = 5.0% to 8.0%).ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence on key performance metrics for DM, DBT alone, combined DBT and DM, and combined DBT and S2D, which may inform optimal application of these modalities for breast cancer screening.
| S-EPMC8168096 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany US radiologists have screening mammography recall rates above the expert-recommended threshold of 12%. The influence of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) on the distribution of radiologist recall rates is uncertain.ObjectiveTo evaluate radiologists' recall and cancer detection rates before and after beginning interpretation of DBT examinations.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included 198 radiologists from 104 radiology facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium who interpreted 251?384 DBT and 2?000?681 digital mammography (DM) screening examinations from 2009 to 2017, including 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations during the study period and 72 (36.4%) who exclusively interpreted DM examinations (to adjust for secular trends). Data were analyzed from April 2018 to July 2019.ExposuresDigital breast tomosynthesis and DM screening examinations.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate and cancer detection rate.ResultsA total of 198 radiologists interpreted 2?252?065 DM and DBT examinations (2?000?681 [88.8%] DM examinations; 251?384 [11.2%] DBT examinations; 710?934 patients [31.6%] aged 50-59 years; 1?448?981 [64.3%] non-Hispanic white). Among the 126 radiologists (63.6%) who interpreted DBT examinations, 83 (65.9%) had unadjusted DM recall rates of no more than 12% before using DBT, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 10.0% (7.5%-13.0%). On DBT examinations, 96 (76.2%) had an unadjusted recall rate of no more than 12%, with a median (interquartile range) recall rate of 8.8% (6.3%-11.3%). A secular trend in recall rate was observed, with the multivariable-adjusted risk of recall on screening examinations declining by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.5%) per year. After adjusting for examination characteristics and secular trends, recall rates were 15% lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83-0.87). Adjusted recall rates were significantly lower on DBT examinations compared with DM examinations interpreted before DBT use for 45 radiologists (35.7%) and significantly higher for 18 (14.3%); 63 (50.0%) had no statistically significant change. The unadjusted cancer detection rate on DBT was 5.3 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 5.0-5.7 per 1000 examinations) compared with 4.7 per 1000 examinations (95% CI, 4.6-4.8 per 1000 examinations) on DM examinations interpreted before DM use (multivariable-adjusted risk ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.33).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, DBT was associated with an overall decrease in recall rate and an increase in cancer detection rate. However, our results indicated that there is wide variability among radiologists, including a subset of radiologists who experienced increased recall rates on DBT examinations. Radiology practices should audit radiologist DBT screening performance and consider additional DBT training for radiologists whose performance does not improve as expected.
| S-EPMC7292996 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) combined with digital mammography (DM) is increasingly used in the United States instead of DM alone for breast cancer screening. Early screening outcomes incorporating synthetic mammography (SM) with DBT have suggested that SM is an acceptable non-radiation dose alternative to DM.PurposeTo compare multicenter outcomes from breast cancer screening with SM/DBT versus DM/DBT.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective study of consecutive screening mammograms obtained at two institutions. Eligible studies consisted of 34 106 DM/DBT examinations between October 3, 2011, and October 31, 2014, and 34 180 SM/DBT examinations between January 7, 2015, and February 2, 2018, at the University of Pennsylvania and 51 148 DM/DBT examinations between January 1, 2012, and May 31, 2016, and 31 929 SM/DBT examinations between June 1, 2016, and March 30, 2018, at the University of Vermont. Demographics of women who attended screening and results from screening were recorded. Recall rate, biopsy rate, false-negative rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated according to modality and institution. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and logistic regression were used in analysis.ResultsThe study included 151 363 screening examinations among 151 363 women (mean age, 58.1 years ± 10.9 [standard deviation]). The unadjusted recall rate was lower with SM/DBT than with DM/DBT (7.0% [4630 of 66 109 examinations] for SM/DBT vs 7.9% [6742 of 85 254 examinations] for DM/DBT; P < .01). However, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with a slightly higher recall rate compared with DM/DBT (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.06; adjusted 95% CI: 1.01, 1.11; P = .02). Similarly, after multivariable adjustment, SM/DBT was associated with slightly lower specificity compared with DM/DBT (adjusted OR, 0.95; adjusted 95% CI: 0.90, 0.99; P = .02). There was no statistically significant difference in biopsy rate (P = .54), false-negative rate (P = .38), cancer detection rate (P = .55), invasive or in situ cancer detection rate (P = .52 and P = .98, respectively), positive predictive value (P = .78), or sensitivity (P = .33) for SM/DBT versus DM/DBT overall or within either institution (P > .05 for all).ConclusionBreast cancer screening performance is maintained within benchmarks when synthetic mammography replaces digital mammography in digital breast tomosynthesis imaging.© RSNA, 2020Online supplemental material is available for this article.See also the editorial by Lång in this issue.
| S-EPMC7706877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo investigate the potential of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and radiomics analysis for the noninvasive differentiation of breast cancer invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade.ProceduresThis retrospective study included 100 patients with 103 breast cancers who underwent pretreatment CEM. Radiomics analysis was performed using MAZDA software. Lesions were manually segmented. Radiomic features were derived from first-order histogram (HIS), co-occurrence matrix (COM), run length matrix (RLM), absolute gradient, autoregressive model, the discrete Haar wavelet transform (WAV), and lesion geometry. Fisher, probability of error and average correlation (POE+ACC), and mutual information (MI) coefficients informed feature selection. Linear discriminant analysis followed by k-nearest neighbor classification (with leave-one-out cross-validation) was used for pairwise texture-based separation of tumor invasiveness and hormone receptor status using histopathology as the standard of reference.ResultsRadiomics analysis achieved the highest accuracies of 87.4 % for differentiating invasive from noninvasive cancers based on COM+HIS/MI, 78.4 % for differentiating HR positive from HR negative cancers based on COM+HIS/Fisher, 97.2 % for differentiating human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive/HR-negative from HER2-negative/HR-positive cancers based on RLM+WAV/MI, 100 % for differentiating triple-negative from triple-positive breast cancers mainly based on COM+WAV+HIS/POE+ACC, and 82.1 % for differentiating triple-negative from HR-positive cancers mainly based on WAV+HIS/Fisher. Accuracies for differentiating grade 1 vs. grades 2 and 3 cancers were 90 % for invasive cancers (based on COM/MI) and 100 % for noninvasive cancers (almost entirely based on COM/MI).ConclusionsRadiomics analysis with CEM has potential for noninvasive differentiation of tumors with different degrees of invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade.
| S-EPMC7047570 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The associations between mammographic radiomics and breast cancer clinical endpoints are unclear. We aimed to identify mammographic radiomics features associated with breast cancer prognosis. Nested from a large breast cancer cohort in our institution, we conducted an extreme case-control study consisting of 207 cases with any invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) endpoint <5 years and 207 molecular subtype-matched controls with >5-year iDFS. A total of 632 radiomics features in craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views were extracted from pre-treatment mammography. Logistic regression was used to identify iDFS-associated features with multiple testing corrections (Benjamini-Hochberg method). In a subsample with RNA-seq data (n = 96), gene set enrichment analysis was employed to identify pathways associated with lead features. We identified 15 iDFS-associated features from CC-view yet none from MLO-view. S(1,-1)SumAverg and WavEnLL_s-6 were the lead ones and associated with favourable (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.87, P = 0.01) and poor iDFS (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.31-1.76, P = 0.01), respectively. Both features were associated with eight pathways (primarily involving cell cycle regulation) in tumour but not adjacent normal tissues. Our findings suggest mammographic radiomics features are associated with breast cancer iDFS, potentially through pathways involving cell cycle regulation.
| S-EPMC9643418 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBreast cancer screening examinations using digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) has been shown to be associated with decreased false-positive test results and increased breast cancer detection compared with digital mammography (DM). Little is known regarding the size and stage of breast cancer types detected and their association with age and breast density.ObjectiveTo determine whether screening examinations using DBT detect breast cancers that are associated with an improved prognosis and to compare the detection rates by patient age and breast density.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective analysis of prospective cohort data from 3 research centers in the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening Through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium included data of women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent screening examinations using DM and DBT from January 1, 2011, through September 30, 2014. Statistical analysis was performed from November 8, 2017, to August 14, 2018.ExposuresUse of DBT as a supplement to DM at breast cancer screening examination.Main outcomes and measuresRecall rate, cancer detection rate, positive predictive value, biopsy rate, and distribution of invasive cancer subtypes.ResultsAmong 96 269 women (mean [SD] patient age for all examinations, 55.9 [9.0] years), patient age was 56.4 (9.0) years for DM and 54.6 (8.9) years for DBT. Of 180 340 breast cancer screening examinations, 129 369 examinations (71.7%) used DM and 50 971 examinations (28.3%) used DBT. Screening examination with DBT (73 of 99 women [73.7%]) was associated with the detection of smaller, more often node-negative, HER2-negative, invasive cancers compared with DM (276 of 422 women [65.4%]). Screening examination with DBT was also associated with lower recall (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.57-0.72; P < .001) and higher cancer detection (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.89; P = .02) compared with DM for all age groups even when stratified by breast density. The largest increase in cancer detection rate and the greatest shift toward smaller, node-negative invasive cancers detected with DBT was for women aged 40 to 49 years. For women aged 40 to 49 years with nondense breasts, the cancer detection rate for examinations using DBT was 1.70 per 1000 women higher compared with the rate using DM; for women with dense breasts, the cancer detection rate was 2.27 per 1000 women higher for DBT. For these younger women, screening with DBT was associated with only 7 of 28 breast cancers (25.0%) categorized as poor prognosis compared with 19 of 47 breast cancers (40.4%) when screening with DM.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that screening with DBT is associated with increased specificity and an increased proportion of breast cancers detected with better prognosis compared with DM. In the subgroup of women aged 40 to 49 years, routine DBT screening may have a favorable risk-benefit ratio.
| S-EPMC6512257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceDigital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) was developed with the expectation of improving cancer detection in women with dense breasts. Studies are needed to evaluate interval invasive and advanced breast cancer rates, intermediary outcomes related to breast cancer mortality, by breast density and breast cancer risk.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether DBT screening is associated with a lower likelihood of interval invasive cancer and advanced breast cancer compared with digital mammography by extent of breast density and breast cancer risk.Design, setting, and participantsCohort study of 504 427 women aged 40 to 79 years who underwent 1 003 900 screening digital mammography and 375 189 screening DBT examinations from 2011 through 2018 at 44 US Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) facilities with follow-up for cancer diagnoses through 2019 by linkage to state or regional cancer registries.ExposuresBreast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) breast density; BCSC 5-year breast cancer risk.Main outcomes and measuresRates per 1000 examinations of interval invasive cancer within 12 months of screening mammography and advanced breast cancer (prognostic pathologic stage II or higher) within 12 months of screening mammography, both estimated with inverse probability weighting.ResultsAmong 504 427 women in the study population, the median age at time of mammography was 58 years (IQR, 50-65 years). Interval invasive cancer rates per 1000 examinations were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography (overall, 0.57 vs 0.61, respectively; difference, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.06; P = .43) or among all the 836 250 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk less than 1.67% (low to average-risk) or all the 413 061 examinations with BCSC 5-year risk of 1.67% or higher (high risk) across breast density categories. Advanced cancer rates were not significantly different for DBT vs digital mammography among women at low to average risk or at high risk with almost entirely fatty, scattered fibroglandular densities, or heterogeneously dense breasts. Advanced cancer rates per 1000 examinations were significantly lower for DBT vs digital mammography for the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer (13 291 examinations in the DBT group and 31 300 in the digital mammography group; 0.27 vs 0.80 per 1000 examinations; difference, -0.53; 95% CI, -0.97 to -0.10) but not for women at low to average risk (10 611 examinations in the DBT group and 37 796 in the digital mammography group; 0.54 vs 0.42 per 1000 examinations; difference, 0.12; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.32).Conclusions and relevanceScreening with DBT vs digital mammography was not associated with a significant difference in risk of interval invasive cancer and was associated with a significantly lower risk of advanced breast cancer among the 3.6% of women with extremely dense breasts and at high risk of breast cancer. No significant difference was observed in the 96.4% of women with nondense breasts, heterogeneously dense breasts, or with extremely dense breasts not at high risk.
| S-EPMC9198754 | biostudies-literature