Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Breast cancer (1)
- Contrast-enhanced (1)
- Magnetic resonance imaging (1)
- Molecular subtype (1)
- Radiomics (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Background: To 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.
Methods: One 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.
Results: In 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%).
Conclusions: In 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.
Background: The MRI Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) lexicon recommends that a breast MRI proto-col contain T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI sequences. The addition of diffusion-weighted imag-ing (DWI) significantly improves diagnostic accuracy. This study aims to clarify which descriptors from DCE-MRI, DWI, andT2-weighted imaging are most strongly associated with a breast cancer diagnosis.Purpose/Hypothesis: To develop a multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) model for breast cancer diagnosis incorporating Ameri-can College of Radiology (ACR) BI-RADS recommended descriptors for breast MRI with DCE, T2-weighted imaging, andDWI with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) mapping.Study Type: Retrospective.Subjects: In all, 188 patients (mean 51.6 years) with 210 breast tumors (136 malignant and 74 benign) who underwentmpMRI from December 2010 to September 2014.Field Strength/Sequence: IR inversion recovert DCE-MRI dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging VIBEVolume-Interpolated-Breathhold-Examination FLASH turbo fast-low-angle-shot TWIST Time-resolved angiography withstochastic Trajectories.Assessment: Two radiologists in consensus and another radiologist independently evaluated the mpMRI data. Charac-teristics for mass (n = 182) and nonmass (n = 28) lesions were recorded on DCE and T2-weighted imaging accordingto BI-RADS, as well as DWI descriptors. Two separate models were analyzed, using DCE-MRI BI-RADS descriptors, T2-weighted imagines, and ADCmean as either a continuous or binary form using a previously published ADC cutoffvalue of ≤1.25 × 10−3mm2/sec for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions. Histopathology was the stan-dard of reference.Statistical Tests: χ2test, Fisher’s exact test, Kruskal–Wallis test, Pearson correlation coefficient, multivariate logistic regres-sion analysis, Hosmer–Lemeshow test of goodness-of-fit, receiver operating characteristics analysis.Results: In Model 1, ADCmean (P = 0.0031), mass margins with DCE (P = 0.0016), and delayed enhancement with DCE(P = 0.0016) were significantly and independently associated with breast cancer diagnosis; Model 2 identified ADCmean(P = 0.0031), mass margins with DCE (P = 0.0012), initial enhancement (P = 0.0422), and delayed enhancement with DCE(P = 0.0065) to be significantly independently associated with breast cancer diagnosis. T2-weighted imaging variables werenot included in the final models