Literature DB >> 27144536

MR Imaging Radiomics Signatures for Predicting the Risk of Breast Cancer Recurrence as Given by Research Versions of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 Gene Assays.

Hui Li1, Yitan Zhu1, Elizabeth S Burnside1, Karen Drukker1, Katherine A Hoadley1, Cheng Fan1, Suzanne D Conzen1, Gary J Whitman1, Elizabeth J Sutton1, Jose M Net1, Marie Ganott1, Erich Huang1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Charles M Perou1, Yuan Ji1, Maryellen L Giger1.   

Abstract

Purpose To investigate relationships between computer-extracted breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging phenotypes with multigene assays of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 to assess the role of radiomics in evaluating the risk of breast cancer recurrence. Materials and Methods Analysis was conducted on an institutional review board-approved retrospective data set of 84 deidentified, multi-institutional breast MR examinations from the National Cancer Institute Cancer Imaging Archive, along with clinical, histopathologic, and genomic data from The Cancer Genome Atlas. The data set of biopsy-proven invasive breast cancers included 74 (88%) ductal, eight (10%) lobular, and two (2%) mixed cancers. Of these, 73 (87%) were estrogen receptor positive, 67 (80%) were progesterone receptor positive, and 19 (23%) were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive. For each case, computerized radiomics of the MR images yielded computer-extracted tumor phenotypes of size, shape, margin morphology, enhancement texture, and kinetic assessment. Regression and receiver operating characteristic analysis were conducted to assess the predictive ability of the MR radiomics features relative to the multigene assay classifications. Results Multiple linear regression analyses demonstrated significant associations (R2 = 0.25-0.32, r = 0.5-0.56, P < .0001) between radiomics signatures and multigene assay recurrence scores. Important radiomics features included tumor size and enhancement texture, which indicated tumor heterogeneity. Use of radiomics in the task of distinguishing between good and poor prognosis yielded area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values of 0.88 (standard error, 0.05), 0.76 (standard error, 0.06), 0.68 (standard error, 0.08), and 0.55 (standard error, 0.09) for MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, PAM50 risk of relapse based on subtype, and PAM50 risk of relapse based on subtype and proliferation, respectively, with all but the latter showing statistical difference from chance. Conclusion Quantitative breast MR imaging radiomics shows promise for image-based phenotyping in assessing the risk of breast cancer recurrence. © RSNA, 2016 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27144536      PMCID: PMC5069147          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016152110

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


  37 in total

1.  A fuzzy c-means (FCM)-based approach for computerized segmentation of breast lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Maryellen L Giger; Ulrich Bick
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Weijie Chen; Maryellen L Giger; Hui Li; Ulrich Bick; Gillian M Newstead
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 3.  Anniversary paper: History and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM.

Authors:  Maryellen L Giger; Heang-Ping Chan; John Boone
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Radiogenomic analysis of breast cancer: luminal B molecular subtype is associated with enhancement dynamics at MR imaging.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Jing Zhang; Lars J Grimm; Sora C Yoon; James I Silber
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Computerized three-class classification of MRI-based prognostic markers for breast cancer.

Authors:  Neha Bhooshan; Maryellen Giger; Darrin Edwards; Yading Yuan; Sanaz Jansen; Hui Li; Li Lan; Husain Sattar; Gillian Newstead
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2011-08-22       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository.

Authors:  Kenneth Clark; Bruce Vendt; Kirk Smith; John Freymann; Justin Kirby; Paul Koppel; Stephen Moore; Stanley Phillips; David Maffitt; Michael Pringle; Lawrence Tarbox; Fred Prior
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.056

8.  Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves.

Authors:  Lorenzo L Pesce; Charles E Metz
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Analytical validation of the Oncotype DX genomic diagnostic test for recurrence prognosis and therapeutic response prediction in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Maureen Cronin; Chithra Sangli; Mei-Lan Liu; Mylan Pho; Debjani Dutta; Anhthu Nguyen; Jennie Jeong; Jenny Wu; Kim Clark Langone; Drew Watson
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2007-04-26       Impact factor: 8.327

10.  Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes.

Authors:  Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  161 in total

1.  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

2.  Quality of science and reporting of radiomics in oncologic studies: room for improvement according to radiomics quality score and TRIPOD statement.

Authors:  Ji Eun Park; Donghyun Kim; Ho Sung Kim; Seo Young Park; Jung Youn Kim; Se Jin Cho; Jae Ho Shin; Jeong Hoon Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-07-26       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Authors:  Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger; Bonnie N Joe; Karla Kerlikowske; Heather Greenwood; Jennifer S Drukteinis; Bethany Niell; Bo Fan; Serghei Malkov; Jesus Avila; Leila Kazemi; John Shepherd
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-12-11       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  Radiomics in RayPlus: a Web-Based Tool for Texture Analysis in Medical Images.

Authors:  Rong Yuan; Shuyue Shi; Junhui Chen; Guanxun Cheng
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 4.056

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.  Radiomic analysis of HTR-DCE MR sequences improves diagnostic performance compared to BI-RADS analysis of breast MR lesions.

Authors:  Saskia Vande Perre; Loïc Duron; Audrey Milon; Asma Bekhouche; Daniel Balvay; Francois H Cornelis; Laure Fournier; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 7.  NCTN Assessment on Current Applications of Radiomics in Oncology.

Authors:  Ke Nie; Hania Al-Hallaq; X Allen Li; Stanley H Benedict; Jason W Sohn; Jean M Moran; Yong Fan; Mi Huang; Michael V Knopp; Jeff M Michalski; James Monroe; Ceferino Obcemea; Christina I Tsien; Timothy Solberg; Jackie Wu; Ping Xia; Ying Xiao; Issam El Naqa
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 7.038

8.  Computer-aided diagnosis with radiogenomics: analysis of the relationship between genotype and morphological changes of the brain magnetic resonance images.

Authors:  Chiharu Kai; Yoshikazu Uchiyama; Junji Shiraishi; Hiroshi Fujita; Kunio Doi
Journal:  Radiol Phys Technol       Date:  2018-05-10

Review 9.  Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.

Authors:  Krzysztof J Geras; Ritse M Mann; Linda Moy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  MR image-based radiomics to differentiate type Ι and type ΙΙ epithelial ovarian cancers.

Authors:  Junming Jian; Yong'ai Li; Perry J Pickhardt; Wei Xia; Zhang He; Rui Zhang; Shuhui Zhao; Xingyu Zhao; Songqi Cai; Jiayi Zhang; Guofu Zhang; Jingxuan Jiang; Yan Zhang; Keying Wang; Guangwu Lin; Feng Feng; Xiaodong Wu; Xin Gao; Jinwei Qiang
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2020-08-02       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.