Literature DB >> 20123903

Cancerous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers.

Neha Bhooshan1, Maryellen L Giger, Sanaz A Jansen, Hui Li, Li Lan, Gillian M Newstead.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the performance of computer-extracted dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging kinetic and morphologic features in the differentiation of invasive versus noninvasive breast lesions and metastatic versus nonmetastatic breast lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved HIPAA-compliant study, in which the requirement for informed patient consent was waived, breast MR images were retrospectively collected. The images had been obtained with a 1.5-T MR unit by using a gadodiamide-enhanced T1-weighted spoiled gradient-recalled acquisition in the steady state sequence. The breast MR imaging database contained 132 benign, 71 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 150 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) lesions. Fifty-four IDC lesions were associated with metastasis-positive lymph nodes (LNs), and 64 IDC lesions were associated with negative LNs. Lesion segmentation and extraction of morphologic and kinetic features were automatically performed by a laboratory-developed computer workstation. Features were first selected by using stepwise linear discriminant analysis and then merged by using Bayesian neural networks. Lesion classification performance was assessed with receiver operating characteristic analysis.
RESULTS: Differentiation of DCIS from IDC lesions yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83 +/- 0.03 (standard error). AUCs were 0.85 +/- 0.02 for differentiation between IDC and benign lesions and 0.79 +/- 0.03 for differentiation between DCIS and benign lesions. Differentiation between IDC lesions associated with positive LNs and IDC lesions associated with negative LNs yielded an AUC of 0.82 +/- 0.04. AUCs were 0.86 +/- 0.03 for differentiation between IDC lesions associated with positive LNs and benign lesions and 0.83 +/- 0.03 for differentiation between IDC lesions associated with negative LNs and benign lesions.
CONCLUSION: Computer-aided diagnosis of breast DCE MR imaging-depicted lesions was extended from the task of discriminating between malignant and benign lesions to the prognostic tasks of distinguishing between noninvasive and invasive lesions and discriminating between metastatic and nonmetastatic lesions, yielding MR imaging-based prognostic markers. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.09090838/-/DC1. (c) RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20123903      PMCID: PMC2826695          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.09090838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  49 in total

1.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?

Authors:  C K Kuhl; P Mielcareck; S Klaschik; C Leutner; E Wardelmann; J Gieseke; H H Schild
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis.

Authors:  Y Jiang; R M Nishikawa; R A Schmidt; C E Metz; M L Giger; K Doi
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 3.  The fourth EORTC DCIS Consensus meeting (Château Marquette, Heemskerk, The Netherlands, 23-24 January 1998)--conference report.

Authors:  A Recht; E J Rutgers; I S Fentiman; J M Kurtz; R E Mansel; J P Sloane
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Statistical comparison of two ROC-curve estimates obtained from partially-paired datasets.

Authors:  C E Metz; B A Herman; C A Roe
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1998 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Computer-aided breast cancer detection and diagnosis of masses using difference of Gaussians and derivative-based feature saliency.

Authors:  W E Polakowski; D A Cournoyer; S K Rogers; M P DeSimio; D W Ruck; J W Hoffmeister; R A Raines
Journal:  IEEE Trans Med Imaging       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 10.048

6.  The importance of histologic type on breast cancer survival.

Authors:  M E Northridge; G G Rhoads; D Wartenberg; D Koffman
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Computerized analysis of breast lesions in three dimensions using dynamic magnetic-resonance imaging.

Authors:  K G Gilhuijs; M L Giger; U Bick
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  The impact of stage and histology on the long-term clinical course of 163,808 patients with breast carcinoma.

Authors:  J W Gamel; J S Meyer; E Feuer; B A Miller
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent.

Authors:  C Boetes; R D Mus; R Holland; J O Barentsz; S P Strijk; T Wobbes; J H Hendriks; S H Ruys
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years.

Authors:  H J BLOOM; W W RICHARDSON
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1957-09       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  79 in total

1.  Special Section Guest Editorial:Radiomics and Imaging Genomics: Quantitative Imaging for Precision Medicine.

Authors:  Sandy Napel; Maryellen Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-12-11

2.  Potential of computer-aided diagnosis of high spectral and spatial resolution (HiSS) MRI in the classification of breast lesions.

Authors:  Neha Bhooshan; Maryellen Giger; Milica Medved; Hui Li; Abbie Wood; Yading Yuan; Li Lan; Angelica Marquez; Greg Karczmar; Gillian Newstead
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 4.813

3.  Computer-aided diagnosis of breast DCE-MRI images using bilateral asymmetry of contrast enhancement between two breasts.

Authors:  Qian Yang; Lihua Li; Juan Zhang; Guoliang Shao; Chengjie Zhang; Bin Zheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Heterogeneous Enhancement Patterns of Tumor-adjacent Parenchyma at MR Imaging Are Associated with Dysregulated Signaling Pathways and Poor Survival in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jia Wu; Bailiang Li; Xiaoli Sun; Guohong Cao; Daniel L Rubin; Sandy Napel; Debra M Ikeda; Allison W Kurian; Ruijiang Li
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 11.105

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

Authors:  Maria Adele Marino; Katja Pinker; Doris Leithner; Janice Sung; Daly Avendano; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine Jochelson
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 3.488

6.  3D multi-parametric breast MRI segmentation using hierarchical support vector machine with coil sensitivity correction.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Glen Morrell; Marta E Heibrun; Allison Payne; Dennis L Parker
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 7.  Methods and challenges in quantitative imaging biomarker development.

Authors:  Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Leon Lenchik; Rathan M Subramaniam
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Predicting Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype with MRI Dataset Utilizing Convolutional Neural Network Algorithm.

Authors:  Richard Ha; Simukayi Mutasa; Jenika Karcich; Nishant Gupta; Eduardo Pascual Van Sant; John Nemer; Mary Sun; Peter Chang; Michael Z Liu; Sachin Jambawalikar
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Using computer-extracted image phenotypes from tumors on breast magnetic resonance imaging to predict breast cancer pathologic stage.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Karen Drukker; Hui Li; Ermelinda Bonaccio; Margarita Zuley; Marie Ganott; Jose M Net; Elizabeth J Sutton; Kathleen R Brandt; Gary J Whitman; Suzanne D Conzen; Li Lan; Yuan Ji; Yitan Zhu; Carl C Jaffe; Erich P Huang; John B Freymann; Justin S Kirby; Elizabeth A Morris; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  Quantitative ultrasound image analysis of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen Giger; Lina Arbash Meinel; Adam Starkey; Jyothi Janardanan; Hiroyuki Abe
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2013-03-24       Impact factor: 2.924

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.