OBJECTIVE: To employ machine learning methods to predict the eventual therapeutic response of breast cancer patients after a single cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI data were acquired on 28 patients before and after one cycle of NAC. A total of 118 semiquantitative and quantitative parameters were derived from these data and combined with 11 clinical variables. We used Bayesian logistic regression in combination with feature selection using a machine learning framework for predictive model building. RESULTS: The best predictive models using feature selection obtained an area under the curve of 0.86 and an accuracy of 0.86, with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.82. DISCUSSION: With the numerous options for NAC available, development of a method to predict response early in the course of therapy is needed. Unfortunately, by the time most patients are found not to be responding, their disease may no longer be surgically resectable, and this situation could be avoided by the development of techniques to assess response earlier in the treatment regimen. The method outlined here is one possible solution to this important clinical problem. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive modeling approaches based on machine learning using readily available clinical and quantitative MRI data show promise in distinguishing breast cancer responders from non-responders after the first cycle of NAC.
OBJECTIVE: To employ machine learning methods to predict the eventual therapeutic response of breast cancerpatients after a single cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI data were acquired on 28 patients before and after one cycle of NAC. A total of 118 semiquantitative and quantitative parameters were derived from these data and combined with 11 clinical variables. We used Bayesian logistic regression in combination with feature selection using a machine learning framework for predictive model building. RESULTS: The best predictive models using feature selection obtained an area under the curve of 0.86 and an accuracy of 0.86, with a sensitivity of 0.88 and a specificity of 0.82. DISCUSSION: With the numerous options for NAC available, development of a method to predict response early in the course of therapy is needed. Unfortunately, by the time most patients are found not to be responding, their disease may no longer be surgically resectable, and this situation could be avoided by the development of techniques to assess response earlier in the treatment regimen. The method outlined here is one possible solution to this important clinical problem. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive modeling approaches based on machine learning using readily available clinical and quantitative MRI data show promise in distinguishing breast cancer responders from non-responders after the first cycle of NAC.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Lajos Pusztai; Jean-Remi Garbay; Suzette Delaloge; Kelly K Hunt; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Donald Berry; Henry M Kuerer Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nola M Hylton; Jeffrey D Blume; Wanda K Bernreuter; Etta D Pisano; Mark A Rosen; Elizabeth A Morris; Paul T Weatherall; Constance D Lehman; Gillian M Newstead; Sandra Polin; Helga S Marques; Laura J Esserman; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: José M Jerez-Aragonés; José A Gómez-Ruiz; Gonzalo Ramos-Jiménez; José Muñoz-Pérez; Emilio Alba-Conejo Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Rong Zhou; Stephen Pickup; Thomas E Yankeelov; Charles S Springer; Jerry D Glickson Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hakmook Kang; Allison Hainline; Lori R Arlinghaus; Stephanie Elderidge; Xia Li; Vandana G Abramson; Anuradha Bapsi Chakravarthy; Richard G Abramson; Brian Bingham; Kareem Fakhoury; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-12-29
Authors: Yangming Ou; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Sarah Englander; Xiao Da; Bilwaj Gaonkar; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Mark Rosen; Angela DeMichele; Christos Davatzikos; Despina Kontos Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-07-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hendrikus J A van Os; Lucas A Ramos; Adam Hilbert; Matthijs van Leeuwen; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Nyika D Kruyt; Diederik W J Dippel; Ewout W Steyerberg; Irene C van der Schaaf; Hester F Lingsma; Wouter J Schonewille; Charles B L M Majoie; Silvia D Olabarriaga; Koos H Zwinderman; Esmee Venema; Henk A Marquering; Marieke J H Wermer Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Carmen Herrero Vicent; Xavier Tudela; Paula Moreno Ruiz; Víctor Pedralva; Ana Jiménez Pastor; Daniel Ahicart; Silvia Rubio Novella; Isabel Meneu; Ángela Montes Albuixech; Miguel Ángel Santamaria; María Fonfria; Almudena Fuster-Matanzo; Santiago Olmos Antón; Eduardo Martínez de Dueñas Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-19 Impact factor: 6.575