Literature DB >> 30375931

Radiomic Phenotypes of Mammographic Parenchymal Complexity: Toward Augmenting Breast Density in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment.

Despina Kontos1, Stacey J Winham1, Andrew Oustimov1, Lauren Pantalone1, Meng-Kang Hsieh1, Aimilia Gastounioti1, Dana H Whaley1, Carrie B Hruska1, Karla Kerlikowske1, Kathleen Brandt1, Emily F Conant1, Celine M Vachon1.   

Abstract

Purpose To identify phenotypes of mammographic parenchymal complexity by using radiomic features and to evaluate their associations with breast density and other breast cancer risk factors. Materials and Methods Computerized image analysis was used to quantify breast density and extract parenchymal texture features in a cross-sectional sample of women screened with digital mammography from September 1, 2012, to February 28, 2013 (n = 2029; age range, 35-75 years; mean age, 55.9 years). Unsupervised clustering was applied to identify and reproduce phenotypes of parenchymal complexity in separate training (n = 1339) and test sets (n = 690). Differences across phenotypes by age, body mass index, breast density, and estimated breast cancer risk were assessed by using Fisher exact, χ2, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Conditional logistic regression was used to evaluate preliminary associations between the detected phenotypes and breast cancer in an independent case-control sample (76 women diagnosed with breast cancer and 158 control participants) matched on age. Results Unsupervised clustering in the screening sample identified four phenotypes with increasing parenchymal complexity that were reproducible between training and test sets (P = .001). Breast density was not strongly correlated with phenotype category (R2 = 0.24 for linear trend). The low- to intermediate-complexity phenotype (prevalence, 390 of 2029 [19%]) had the lowest proportion of dense breasts (eight of 390 [2.1%]), whereas similar proportions were observed across other phenotypes (from 140 of 291 [48.1%] in the high-complexity phenotype to 275 of 511 [53.8%] in the low-complexity phenotype). In the independent case-control sample, phenotypes showed a significant association with breast cancer (P = .001), resulting in higher discriminatory capacity when added to a model with breast density and body mass index (area under the curve, 0.84 vs 0.80; P = .03 for comparison). Conclusion Radiomic phenotypes capture mammographic parenchymal complexity beyond conventional breast density measures and established breast cancer risk factors. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Pinker in this issue.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30375931      PMCID: PMC6314515          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018180179

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


  22 in total

1.  Computerized analysis of digitized mammograms of BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers.

Authors:  Zhimin Huo; Maryellen L Giger; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dulcy E Wolverton; Barbara L Weber; Charles E Metz; Weiming Zhong; Shelly A Cummings
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  A novel automated mammographic density measure and breast cancer risk.

Authors:  John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; Thomas A Sellers; Kathleen R Brandt; Daniel J Serie; Fang-Fang Wu; Marilyn J Morton; Beth A Schueler; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer.

Authors:  Norman F Boyd; Helen Guo; Lisa J Martin; Limei Sun; Jennifer Stone; Eve Fishell; Roberta A Jong; Greg Hislop; Anna Chiarelli; Salomon Minkin; Martin J Yaffe
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2007-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Association between mammographic density and age-related lobular involution of the breast.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Lynn C Hartmann; Carol Reynolds; Daniel W Visscher; Kathleen R Brandt; Robert A Vierkant; Christopher G Scott; Derek C Radisky; Thomas A Sellers; V Shane Pankratz; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-03-29       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Valerie A McCormack; Isabel dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Association of computerized mammographic parenchymal pattern measure with breast cancer risk: a pilot case-control study.

Authors:  Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Yi-Ta Wu; Chuan Zhou; Mark A Helvie; Alexander Tsodikov; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Berkman Sahiner
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-03-15       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Characterizing mammographic images by using generic texture features.

Authors:  Lothar Häberle; Florian Wagner; Peter A Fasching; Sebastian M Jud; Katharina Heusinger; Christian R Loehberg; Alexander Hein; Christian M Bayer; Carolin C Hack; Michael P Lux; Katja Binder; Matthias Elter; Christian Münzenmayer; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Martina Meier-Meitinger; Boris R Adamietz; Michael Uder; Matthias W Beckmann; Thomas Wittenberg
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Relationships between computer-extracted mammographic texture pattern features and BRCA1/2 mutation status: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Gretchen L Gierach; Hui Li; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene; Catherine K Chow; Li Lan; Sheila A Prindiville; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Peter W Soballe; Claudia Giambartolomei; Phuong L Mai; Claudia E Galbo; Kathryn Nichols; Kathleen A Calzone; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Mitchell H Gail; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2014-08-23       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Association between mammographic breast density and histologic features of benign breast disease.

Authors:  Karthik Ghosh; Robert A Vierkant; Ryan D Frank; Stacey Winham; Daniel W Visscher; Vernon S Pankratz; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen Brandt; Mark E Sherman; Derek C Radisky; Marlene H Frost; Lynn C Hartmann; Amy C Degnim; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2017-12-19       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 10.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  15 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.  Beyond Breast Density: Radiomic Phenotypes Enhance Assessment of Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Katja Pinker
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  O-Net: An Overall Convolutional Network for Segmentation Tasks.

Authors:  Omid Haji Maghsoudi; Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Christos Davatzikos; Spyridon Bakas; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Mach Learn Med Imaging       Date:  2020-09-29

Review 4.  Radiomics: an Introductory Guide to What It May Foretell.

Authors:  Stephanie Nougaret; Hichem Tibermacine; Marion Tardieu; Evis Sala
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 5.075

5.  Fully Automated Volumetric Breast Density Estimation from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Lauren Pantalone; Christopher G Scott; Eric A Cohen; Fang F Wu; Stacey J Winham; Matthew R Jensen; Andrew D A Maidment; Celine M Vachon; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2021-09-14       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Clot-based radiomics model for cardioembolic stroke prediction with CT imaging before recanalization: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Jingxuan Jiang; Jianyong Wei; Yueqi Zhu; Liming Wei; Xiaoer Wei; Hao Tian; Lei Zhang; Tianle Wang; Yue Cheng; Qianqian Zhao; Zheng Sun; Haiyan Du; Yu Huang; Hui Liu; Yuehua Li
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 7.034

Review 7.  Radiomic Analysis: Study Design, Statistical Analysis, and Other Bias Mitigation Strategies.

Authors:  Chaya S Moskowitz; Mattea L Welch; Michael A Jacobs; Brenda F Kurland; Amber L Simpson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 29.146

Review 8.  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

9.  Evaluation of LIBRA Software for Fully Automated Mammographic Density Assessment in Breast Cancer Risk Prediction.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Christine Damases Kasi; Christopher G Scott; Kathleen R Brandt; Matthew R Jensen; Carrie B Hruska; Fang F Wu; Aaron D Norman; Emily F Conant; Stacey J Winham; Karla Kerlikowske; Despina Kontos; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Mammographic Variation Measures, Breast Density, and Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  John Heine; Erin Fowler; Christopher G Scott; Matthew R Jensen; John Shepherd; Carrie B Hruska; Stacey J Winham; Kathleen R Brandt; Fang F Wu; Aaron D Norman; Vernon S Pankratz; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 6.582

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.