Faranak Aghaei1, Maxine Tan1, Alan B Hollingsworth2, Wei Qian3, Hong Liu1, Bin Zheng1. 1. School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019. 2. Mercy Women's Center, Mercy Health Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73120. 3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas 79968.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify a new clinical marker based on quantitative kinetic image features analysis and assess its feasibility to predict tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: The authors assembled a dataset involving breast MR images acquired from 68 cancer patients before undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Among them, 25 patients had complete response (CR) and 43 had partial and nonresponse (NR) to chemotherapy based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. The authors developed a computer-aided detection scheme to segment breast areas and tumors depicted on the breast MR images and computed a total of 39 kinetic image features from both tumor and background parenchymal enhancement regions. The authors then applied and tested two approaches to classify between CR and NR cases. The first one analyzed each individual feature and applied a simple feature fusion method that combines classification results from multiple features. The second approach tested an attribute selected classifier that integrates an artificial neural network (ANN) with a wrapper subset evaluator, which was optimized using a leave-one-case-out validation method. RESULTS: In the pool of 39 features, 10 yielded relatively higher classification performance with the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) ranging from 0.61 to 0.78 to classify between CR and NR cases. Using a feature fusion method, the maximum AUC=0.85±0.05. Using the ANN-based classifier, AUC value significantly increased to 0.96±0.03 (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that quantitative analysis of kinetic image features computed from breast MR images acquired prechemotherapy has potential to generate a useful clinical marker in predicting tumor response to chemotherapy.
PURPOSE: To identify a new clinical marker based on quantitative kinetic image features analysis and assess its feasibility to predict tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: The authors assembled a dataset involving breast MR images acquired from 68 cancerpatients before undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Among them, 25 patients had complete response (CR) and 43 had partial and nonresponse (NR) to chemotherapy based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. The authors developed a computer-aided detection scheme to segment breast areas and tumors depicted on the breast MR images and computed a total of 39 kinetic image features from both tumor and background parenchymal enhancement regions. The authors then applied and tested two approaches to classify between CR and NR cases. The first one analyzed each individual feature and applied a simple feature fusion method that combines classification results from multiple features. The second approach tested an attribute selected classifier that integrates an artificial neural network (ANN) with a wrapper subset evaluator, which was optimized using a leave-one-case-out validation method. RESULTS: In the pool of 39 features, 10 yielded relatively higher classification performance with the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) ranging from 0.61 to 0.78 to classify between CR and NR cases. Using a feature fusion method, the maximum AUC=0.85±0.05. Using the ANN-based classifier, AUC value significantly increased to 0.96±0.03 (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that quantitative analysis of kinetic image features computed from breast MR images acquired prechemotherapy has potential to generate a useful clinical marker in predicting tumor response to chemotherapy.
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: Valencia King; Jennifer D Brooks; Jonine L Bernstein; Anne S Reiner; Malcolm C Pike; Elizabeth A Morris Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Robert A Smith; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Durado Brooks; Mary Doroshenk; Stacey Fedewa; Debbie Saslow; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Lindsey J Graham; Matthew P Shupe; Erika J Schneble; Frederick L Flynt; Michael N Clemenshaw; Aaron D Kirkpatrick; Chris Gallagher; Aviram Nissan; Leonard Henry; Alexander Stojadinovic; George E Peoples; Nathan M Shumway Journal: J Cancer Date: 2014-01-05 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Elizabeth Hope Cain; Ashirbani Saha; Michael R Harowicz; Jeffrey R Marks; P Kelly Marcom; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 4.872