Dataset Information

Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Radiomics Analysis for Noninvasive Breast Cancer Characterization: Initial Results.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To 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.

Procedures

This 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.

Results

Radiomics 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).

Conclusions

Radiomics analysis with CEM has potential for noninvasive differentiation of tumors with different degrees of invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade.

SUBMITTER: Marino MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7047570 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) is the most sensitive technique for breast cancer detection. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is emerging as a possible alternative to CE-MRI.PurposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of a low radiation dose contrast-enhanced mammography (L-CEM) in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging compared to CE-MRI of the breast.Study typeProspective, single center.PopulationWomen with suspicious findings on mammography, tomosynthesis, or ultrasound, and no contraindications for L-CEM or CE-MRI. Eighty women were included.Field strength/sequence1.5 and 3T CE-MRI, standard protocol for breast, with dedicated coils, according to international guidelines. L-CEM was performed using a dedicated prototype.AssessmentThree, off-site, blinded readers evaluated the images according to the BI-RADS lexicon in a randomized order, each in two separate reading sessions. Histology served as a gold standard.Statistical testLesion detection rate, sensitivity, specificity, and negative and positive predictive values (NPV, PPV) were calculated and compared with multivariate statistics.ResultsIncluded were 80 women (mean age, 54.3 years ±11.2 standard deviation) with 93 lesions (32 benign, 61 malignant). The detection rate was significantly higher with CE-MRI (92.5-94.6%; L-CEM 79.6-91.4%, P = 0.014). Sensitivity (L-CEM 65.6-90.2%; CE-MRI 83.6-93.4%, P = 0.086) and NPV (L-CEM 59.6-71.4%; CE-MRI 63.0-76.5%, P = 0.780) did not differ between the modalities. Specificity (L-CEM 46.9-96.9%; CE-MRI 37.5-53.1%, P = 0.001) and PPV (L-CEM 76.4-97.6%; CE-MRI 73.3-77.3%, P = 0.007) were significantly higher with L-CEM. Variations between readers were significant for sensitivity and NPV. The accuracy of L-CEM was as good as CE-MRI (75.3-76.3% vs. 72.0-75.3%, P = 0.514).Data conclusionL-CEM showed a high sensitivity and accuracy in women with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Compared to CE-MRI, L-CEM has the potential to increase specificity and PPV. L-CEM might help to reduce false-positive biopsies while obtaining sensitivity comparable to that of CE-MRI LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:589-595.

Project description:Background Previous studies have suggested that breast parenchymal texture features may reflect the biologic risk factors associated with breast cancer development. Therefore, combining the characteristics of normal parenchyma from the contralateral breast with radiomic features of breast tumors may improve the accuracy of digital mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Purpose To determine whether the addition of radiomic analysis of contralateral breast parenchyma to the characterization of breast lesions with digital mammography improves lesion classification over that with radiomic tumor features alone. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 182 patients (age range, 25-90 years; mean age, 55.9 years ± 14.9) who underwent mammography between June 2002 and July 2009. There were 106 malignant and 76 benign lesions. Automatic lesion segmentation and radiomic analysis were performed for each breast lesion. Radiomic texture analysis was applied in the normal regions of interest in the contralateral breast parenchyma to assess the mammographic parenchymal patterns. The classification performance of both individual features and the output from a Bayesian artificial neural network classifier was evaluated with the leave-one-patient-out method by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the figure of merit in the task of differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. Results The performance of the combined lesion and parenchyma classifier in the differentiation between malignant and benign mammographic lesions was better than that with the lesion features alone (AUC = 0.84 ± 0.03 vs 0.79 ± 0.03, respectively; P = .047). Overall, six radiomic features-spiculation, margin sharpness, size, circularity from the tumor feature set, and skewness and power law beta from the parenchymal feature set-were selected more than 50% of the time during the feature selection process on the combined feature set. Conclusion Combining quantitative radiomic data from tumors with contralateral parenchyma characterizations may improve diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer. © RSNA, 2019 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Shaffer in this issue.

Project description:To quantify contrast material enhancement of breast lesions scanned with dedicated breast computed tomography (CT) and to compare their conspicuity with that at unenhanced breast CT and mammography.Approval of the institutional review board and the Radiation Use Committee and written informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. Between September 2006 and April 2009, 46 women (mean age, 53.2 years; age range, 35-72 years) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 lesions underwent unenhanced breast CT and contrast material-enhanced breast CT before biopsy. Two radiologists independently scored lesion conspicuity for contrast-enhanced breast CT versus mammography and for contrast-enhanced breast CT versus unenhanced breast CT. Mean lesion voxel intensity was measured in Hounsfield units and normalized to adipose tissue intensity on manually segmented images obtained before and after administration of contrast material. Regression models focused on conspicuity and quantified enhancement were used to estimate the effect of pathologic diagnosis (benign vs malignant), lesion type (mass vs calcifications), breast density, and interradiologist variability.Fifty-four lesions (25 benign, 29 malignant) in 46 subjects were analyzed. Malignant lesions were seen significantly better at contrast-enhanced breast CT than at unenhanced breast CT (P < .001) or mammography (P < .001). Malignant calcifications (malignant lesions manifested mammographically as microcalcifications only, n = 7) were seen better at contrast-enhanced breast CT than at unenhanced breast CT (P < .001) and were seen similarly at contrast-enhanced breast CT and mammography. Malignant lesions enhanced 55.9 HU +/- 4.0 (standard error), whereas benign lesions enhanced 17.6 HU +/- 6.1 (P < .001). Ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 5) enhanced a mean of 59.6 HU +/- 2.8. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of lesion enhancement yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.876.Conspicuity of malignant breast lesions, including ductal carcinoma in situ, is significantly improved at contrast-enhanced breast CT. Quantifying lesion enhancement may aid in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer.

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiomic signatures extracted from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) for the assessment of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtypes.MethodsOne hundred and forty-three patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer who underwent CE-MRI at 3 T were included in this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. The training dataset comprised 91 patients (luminal A, n = 49; luminal B, n = 8; HER2-enriched, n = 11; triple negative, n = 23), while the validation dataset comprised 52 patients from a second institution (luminal A, n = 17; luminal B, n = 17; triple negative, n = 18). Radiomic analysis of manually segmented tumors included calculation of features derived from the first-order histogram (HIS), co-occurrence matrix (COM), run-length matrix (RLM), absolute gradient (GRA), autoregressive model (ARM), discrete Haar wavelet transform (WAV), and lesion geometry (GEO). Fisher, probability of error and average correlation (POE + ACC), and mutual information coefficients were used for feature selection. Linear discriminant analysis followed by k-nearest neighbor classification (with leave-one-out cross-validation) was used for pairwise radiomic-based separation of receptor status and molecular subtypes. Histopathology served as the standard of reference.ResultsIn the training dataset, radiomic signatures yielded the following accuracies > 80%: luminal B vs. luminal A, 84.2% (mainly based on COM features); luminal B vs. triple negative, 83.9% (mainly based on GEO features); luminal B vs. all others, 89% (mainly based on COM features); and HER2-enriched vs. all others, 81.3% (mainly based on COM features). Radiomic signatures were successfully validated in the separate validation dataset for luminal A vs. luminal B (79.4%) and luminal B vs. triple negative (77.1%).ConclusionsIn this preliminary study, radiomic signatures with CE-MRI enable the assessment of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtypes with high diagnostic accuracy. These results need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

Project description:Objective: A limited number of studies have focused on the radiomic analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). We aimed to construct several radiomics-based models of CEM for classifying benign and malignant breast lesions. Materials and Methods: The retrospective, double-center study included women who underwent CEM between November 2013 and February 2020. Radiomic analysis was performed using high-energy (HE), low-energy (LE), and dual-energy subtraction (DES) images from CEM. Datasets were randomly divided into the training and testing sets at a ratio of 7:3. The maximum relevance minimum redundancy (mRMR) method and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression were used to select the radiomic features and construct the best classification models. The performances of the models were assessed by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Leave-group-out cross-validation (LGOCV) for 100 rounds was performed to obtain the mean AUCs, which were compared by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test. Results: A total of 192 women with 226 breast lesions (101 benign; 125 malignant) were enrolled. The median age was 48 years (range, 22-70 years). For the classification of breast lesions, the AUCs of the best models were 0.931 (95% CI: 0.873-0.989) for HE, 0.897 (95% CI: 0.807-0.981) for LE, 0.882 (95% CI: 0.825-0.987) for DES images and 0.960 (95% CI: 0.910-0.998) for all of the CEM images in the testing set. According to LGOCV, the models constructed with the HE images and all of the CEM images showed the highest mean AUCs for the training (0.931 and 0.938, respectively; P < 0.05 for both) and testing sets (0.892 and 0.889, respectively; P = 0.55 for both), which were significantly higher than those of the two models constructed with the LE and DES images in the training (0.912 and 0.899, respectively; all P < 0.05) and testing sets (0.866 and 0.862, respectively; all P < 0.05). Conclusions: Radiomic analysis of CEM images was valuable for classifying benign and malignant breast lesions. The use of HE images or all three types of CEM images can achieve the best performance.