Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To identify patient and tumor features that predict true-positive, false-positive, and negative breast preoperative MRI outcomes.Materials and methods
Using a breast MRI database from a large regional cancer center, the authors retrospectively identified all women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI from January 2005 to February 2015. A total of 1396 women with complete data were included. Patient features (ie, age, breast density) and index tumor features (ie, type, grade, hormone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2/neu, Ki-67) were extracted and compared with preoperative MRI outcomes (ie, true positive, false positive, negative) using univariate (ie, Fisher exact) and multivariate machine learning approaches (ie, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, AutoPrognosis). Overall prediction performance was summarized using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calculated using internal validation techniques (bootstrap and cross-validation) to account for model training.Results
At the examination level, 181 additional cancers were identified among 1396 total preoperative MRI examinations (median patient age, 56 years; range, 25-94 years), resulting in a positive predictive value for biopsy of 43% (181 true-positive findings of 419 core-needle biopsies). In univariate analysis, no patient or tumor feature was associated with a true-positive outcome (P > .05), although greater mammographic density (P = .022) and younger age (< 50 years, P = .025) were associated with false-positive examinations. Machine learning approaches provided weak performance for predicting true-positive, false-positive, and negative examinations (AUC range, 0.50-0.57).Conclusion
Commonly used patient and tumor factors driving expert opinion for the use of preoperative MRI provide limited predictive value for determining preoperative MRI outcomes in women. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020See also the commentary by Grimm in this issue.
SUBMITTER: Rahbar H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7398118 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature