Literature DB >> 29461172

Radiomics Based on Adapted Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Helps to Clarify Most Mammographic Findings Suspicious for Cancer.

Sebastian Bickelhaupt1, Paul Ferdinand Jaeger1, Frederik Bernd Laun1, Wolfgang Lederer1, Heidi Daniel1, Tristan Anselm Kuder1, Lorenz Wuesthof1, Daniel Paech1, David Bonekamp1, Alexander Radbruch1, Stefan Delorme1, Heinz-Peter Schlemmer1, Franziska Hildegard Steudle1, Klaus Hermann Maier-Hein1.   

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate a radiomics model of Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 4 and 5 breast lesions extracted from breast-tissue-optimized kurtosis magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for lesion characterization by using a sensitivity threshold similar to that of biopsy. Materials and Methods This institutional study included 222 women at two independent study sites (site 1: training set of 95 patients; mean age ± standard deviation, 58.6 years ± 6.6; 61 malignant and 34 benign lesions; site 2: independent test set of 127 patients; mean age, 58.2 years ± 6.8; 61 malignant and 66 benign lesions). All women presented with a finding suspicious for cancer at x-ray mammography (BI-RADS 4 or 5) and an indication for biopsy. Before biopsy, diffusion-weighted MR imaging (b values, 0-1500 sec/mm2) was performed by using 1.5-T imagers from different MR imaging vendors. Lesions were segmented and voxel-based kurtosis fitting adapted to account for fat signal contamination was performed. A radiomics feature model was developed by using a random forest regressor. The fixed model was tested on an independent test set. Conventional interpretations of MR imaging were also assessed for comparison. Results The radiomics feature model reduced false-positive results from 66 to 20 (specificity 70.0% [46 of 66]) at the predefined sensitivity of greater than 98.0% [60 of 61] in the independent test set, with BI-RADS 4a and 4b lesions benefiting from the analysis (specificity 74.0%, [37 of 50]; 60.0% [nine of 15]) and BI-RADS 5 lesions showing no added benefit. The model significantly improved specificity compared with the median apparent diffusion coefficient (P < .001) and apparent kurtosis coefficient (P = .02) alone. Conventional reading of dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging provided sensitivity of 91.8% (56 of 61) and a specificity of 74.2% (49 of 66). Accounting for fat signal intensity during fitting significantly improved the area under the curve of the model (P = .001). Conclusion A radiomics model based on kurtosis diffusion-weighted imaging performed by using MR imaging machines from different vendors allowed for reliable differentiation between malignant and benign breast lesions in both a training and an independent test data set. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29461172     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2017170273

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


  27 in total

1.  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

2.  Diffusion-weighted breast imaging.

Authors:  K Deike-Hofmann; T Kuder; F König; D Paech; C Dreher; S Delorme; H-P Schlemmer; S Bickelhaupt
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 3.  Radiomics: from qualitative to quantitative imaging.

Authors:  William Rogers; Sithin Thulasi Seetha; Turkey A G Refaee; Relinde I Y Lieverse; Renée W Y Granzier; Abdalla Ibrahim; Simon A Keek; Sebastian Sanduleanu; Sergey P Primakov; Manon P L Beuque; Damiënne Marcus; Alexander M A van der Wiel; Fadila Zerka; Cary J G Oberije; Janita E van Timmeren; Henry C Woodruff; Philippe Lambin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-02-26       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  Diffusional kurtosis imaging for differentiation of additional suspicious lesions on preoperative breast MRI of patients with known breast cancer.

Authors:  Vivian Youngjean Park; Sungheon G Kim; Eun-Kyung Kim; Hee Jung Moon; Jung Hyun Yoon; Min Jung Kim
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 2.546

5.  Diffusion-weighted MRI for Unenhanced Breast Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Nita Amornsiripanitch; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Hee Jung Shin; Madeline Dang; Habib Rahbar; Katja Pinker; Savannah C Partridge
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-10-08       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Digital Analysis in Breast Imaging.

Authors:  Giovanna Negrão de Figueiredo; Michael Ingrisch; Eva Maria Fallenberg
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 7.  Radiomics in stratification of pancreatic cystic lesions: Machine learning in action.

Authors:  Vipin Dalal; Joseph Carmicheal; Amaninder Dhaliwal; Maneesh Jain; Sukhwinder Kaur; Surinder K Batra
Journal:  Cancer Lett       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 8.679

Review 8.  Current and Emerging Magnetic Resonance-Based Techniques for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Apekshya Chhetri; Xin Li; Joseph V Rispoli
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-05-12

Review 9.  Radiomics in Breast Imaging from Techniques to Clinical Applications: A Review.

Authors:  Seung Hak Lee; Hyunjin Park; Eun Sook Ko
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2020-07       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Radiomics and Machine Learning with Multiparametric Breast MRI for Improved Diagnostic Accuracy in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.

Authors:  Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Peter Gibbs; Jeffrey S Reiner; Roberto Lo Gullo; Caleb Sooknanan; Sunitha B Thakur; Maxine S Jochelson; Varadan Sevilimedu; Elizabeth A Morris; Pascal A T Baltzer; Thomas H Helbich; Katja Pinker
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.