Prediction of Breast Cancer Histological Outcome by Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.
Contrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)
Dynamic Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI)
artificial intelligence
radiomics
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 Apr 2022
25 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
revised:
30
03
2022
accepted:
21
04
2022
entrez:
14
5
2022
pubmed:
15
5
2022
medline:
15
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To evaluate radiomics features in order to: differentiate malignant versus benign lesions; predict low versus moderate and high grading; identify positive or negative hormone receptors; and discriminate positive versus negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 related to breast cancer. A total of 182 patients with known breast lesions and that underwent Contrast-Enhanced Mammography were enrolled in this retrospective study. The reference standard was pathology (118 malignant lesions and 64 benign lesions). A total of 837 textural metrics were extracted by manually segmenting the region of interest from both craniocaudally (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. Non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, receiver operating characteristic, logistic regression and tree-based machine learning algorithms were used. The Adaptive Synthetic Sampling balancing approach was used and a feature selection process was implemented. In univariate analysis, the classification of malignant versus benign lesions achieved the best performance when considering the original_gldm_DependenceNonUniformity feature extracted on CC view (accuracy of 88.98%). An accuracy of 83.65% was reached in the classification of grading, whereas a slightly lower value of accuracy (81.65%) was found in the classification of the presence of the hormone receptor; the features extracted were the original_glrlm_RunEntropy and the original_gldm_DependenceNonUniformity, respectively. The results of multivariate analysis achieved the best performances when using two or more features as predictors for classifying malignant versus benign lesions from CC view images (max test accuracy of 95.83% with a non-regularized logistic regression). Considering the features extracted from MLO view images, the best test accuracy (91.67%) was obtained when predicting the grading using a classification-tree algorithm. Combinations of only two features, extracted from both CC and MLO views, always showed test accuracy values greater than or equal to 90.00%, with the only exception being the prediction of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, where the best performance (test accuracy of 89.29%) was obtained with the random forest algorithm. The results confirm that the identification of malignant breast lesions and the differentiation of histological outcomes and some molecular subtypes of tumors (mainly positive hormone receptor tumors) can be obtained with satisfactory accuracy through both univariate and multivariate analysis of textural features extracted from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography images.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35565261
pii: cancers14092132
doi: 10.3390/cancers14092132
pmc: PMC9102628
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC)" network.
ID : RCR-2021-23671213
Références
J Med Biol Eng. 2016;36(4):449-459
pubmed: 27656117
Acad Radiol. 2008 Dec;15(12):1513-25
pubmed: 19000868
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jan;24(1):256-64
pubmed: 24048724
Breast. 2016 Aug;28:13-9
pubmed: 27161411
Cancer Lett. 2001 Oct 10;171(2):183-91
pubmed: 11520602
Med Phys. 2009 Jul;36(7):3192-204
pubmed: 19673218
Radiol Med. 2021 Aug 12;:
pubmed: 34386897
Front Med (Lausanne). 2017 Dec 08;4:227
pubmed: 29276709
J Digit Imaging. 2011 Jun;24(3):446-63
pubmed: 20508965
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Jul 18;10(7):
pubmed: 32708512
Radiology. 2013 Mar;266(3):743-51
pubmed: 23220903
Radiol Med. 2022 Jan;127(1):30-38
pubmed: 34665431
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Apr 30;11(5):
pubmed: 33946333
Radiol Med. 2020 Aug;125(8):754-762
pubmed: 32193870
Radiol Med. 2021 Apr;126(4):517-526
pubmed: 33385300
Eur J Radiol. 1997 Feb;24(2):94-108
pubmed: 9097051
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2018 Feb;39(1):70-79
pubmed: 29317041
Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:237863
pubmed: 26339597
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 Apr 10;11(4):
pubmed: 33920221
J Clin Med. 2019 Jun 21;8(6):
pubmed: 31234363
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2008 May;27(5):688-96
pubmed: 18450541
Radiology. 2020 May;295(2):328-338
pubmed: 32154773
Radiol Med. 2021 May;126(5):688-697
pubmed: 33394366
Diagn Interv Imaging. 2017 Feb;98(2):113-123
pubmed: 27687829
Radiol Med. 2020 Aug;125(8):697-705
pubmed: 32200455
Radiol Med. 2021 Aug;126(8):1095-1105
pubmed: 34009541
Radiol Med. 2022 Jan;127(1):39-56
pubmed: 34704213
Radiol Med. 2021 Jun;126(6):745-760
pubmed: 33523367
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Nov-Dec;7(6):1016-26
pubmed: 9400844
Med Phys. 2003 Sep;30(9):2350-9
pubmed: 14528957
Eur J Cancer. 2012 Mar;48(4):441-6
pubmed: 22257792
Radiol Med. 2021 May;126(5):698-706
pubmed: 33392980
Radiol Med. 2020 Feb;125(2):109-116
pubmed: 31696388
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006 Nov;187(5):W528-37
pubmed: 17056886
Radiol Med. 2020 Oct;125(10):951-960
pubmed: 32306201
Physiol Meas. 2002 Nov;23(4):727-39
pubmed: 12450272
Diagnostics (Basel). 2020 Sep 17;10(9):
pubmed: 32957690
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Oct 08;2018:6120703
pubmed: 30402486
Radiol Med. 2020 Feb;125(2):197-203
pubmed: 31773457
Radiol Med. 2017 Oct;122(10):723-730
pubmed: 28540564
Eur J Radiol. 2009 Jan;69(1):34-42
pubmed: 18790584
Radiology. 2003 Oct;229(1):261-8
pubmed: 12888621
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Apr;23(4):493-8
pubmed: 16523479
Stat Med. 1997 Feb 28;16(4):385-95
pubmed: 9044528
Radiol Med. 2016 Dec;121(12):891-896
pubmed: 27601142