Literature DB >> 30526359

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

Karen Drukker1, Maryellen L Giger1, Bonnie N Joe1, Karla Kerlikowske1, Heather Greenwood1, Jennifer S Drukteinis1, Bethany Niell1, Bo Fan1, Serghei Malkov1, Jesus Avila1, Leila Kazemi1, John Shepherd1.   

Abstract

Purpose To investigate the combination of mammography radiomics and quantitative three-compartment breast (3CB) image analysis of dual-energy mammography to limit unnecessary benign breast biopsies. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, dual-energy craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique mammograms were obtained immediately before biopsy in 109 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 31-85 years) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 breast masses (35 invasive cancers, 74 benign) from 2013 through 2017. The three quantitative compartments of water, lipid, and protein thickness at each pixel were calculated from the attenuation at high and low energy by using a within-image phantom. Masses were automatically segmented and features were extracted from the low-energy mammograms and the quantitative compartment images. Tenfold cross-validations using a linear discriminant classifier with predefined feature signatures helped differentiate between malignant and benign masses by means of (a) water-lipid-protein composition images alone, (b) mammography radiomics alone, and (c) a combined image analysis of both. Positive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV3) at maximum sensitivity was the primary performance metric, and results were compared with those for conventional diagnostic digital mammography. Results The PPV3 for conventional diagnostic digital mammography in our data set was 32.1% (35 of 109; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.9%, 41.3%), with a sensitivity of 100%. In comparison, combined mammography radiomics plus quantitative 3CB image analysis had PPV3 of 49% (34 of 70; 95% CI: 36.5%, 58.9%; P < .001), with a sensitivity of 97% (34 of 35; 95% CI: 90.3%, 100%; P < .001) and 35.8% (39 of 109) fewer total biopsies (P < .001). Conclusion Quantitative three-compartment breast image analysis of breast masses combined with mammography radiomics has the potential to reduce unnecessary breast biopsies. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30526359      PMCID: PMC6394732          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018180608

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


  29 in total

1.  Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Evaluation of the effect of computer-aided classification of benign and malignant lesions on reader performance in automated three-dimensional breast ultrasound.

Authors:  Tao Tan; Bram Platel; Thorsten Twellmann; Guido van Schie; Roel Mus; André Grivegnée; Ritse M Mann; Nico Karssemeijer
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial).

Authors:  Fiona J Gilbert; Lorraine Tucker; Maureen G C Gillan; Paula Willsher; Julie Cooke; Karen A Duncan; Michael J Michell; Hilary M Dobson; Yit Yoong Lim; Tamara Suaris; Susan M Astley; Oliver Morrish; Kenneth C Young; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

4.  National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year.

Authors:  Mei-Sing Ong; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 5.  Biomarkers and Imaging of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Olena Weaver; Jessica W T Leung
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-11-22       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  The Future of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.

Authors:  Matthew F Covington; Victor J Pizzitola; Roxanne Lorans; Barbara A Pockaj; Donald W Northfelt; Catherine M Appleton; Bhavika K Patel
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2017-10-24       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Compositional breast imaging using a dual-energy mammography protocol.

Authors:  Aurelie D Laidevant; Serghei Malkov; Chris I Flowers; Karla Kerlikowske; John A Shepherd
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Invasive carcinomas and fibroadenomas of the breast: comparison of microvessel distributions--implications for imaging modalities.

Authors:  K L Weind; C F Maier; B K Rutt; M Moussa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-05-13       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Quantitative MRI radiomics in the prediction of molecular classifications of breast cancer subtypes in the TCGA/TCIA data set.

Authors:  Hui Li; Yitan Zhu; Elizabeth S Burnside; Erich Huang; Karen Drukker; Katherine A Hoadley; Cheng Fan; Suzanne D Conzen; Margarita Zuley; Jose M Net; Elizabeth Sutton; Gary J Whitman; Elizabeth Morris; Charles M Perou; Yuan Ji; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  NPJ Breast Cancer       Date:  2016-05-11
View more
  16 in total

1.  Breast cancer screening: in the era of personalized medicine, age is just a number.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2020-12

2.  The emerging role of contrast-enhanced mammography.

Authors:  Andrea Cozzi; Simone Schiaffino; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-12

3.  The Clinical Utility of a Negative Result at Molecular Breast Imaging: Initial Proof of Concept.

Authors:  Ravi Jain; Deanna R Katz; Amber D Kapoor
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-09-25

4.  Performance metric curve analysis framework to assess impact of the decision variable threshold, disease prevalence, and dataset variability in two-class classification.

Authors:  Heather M Whitney; Karen Drukker; Maryellen L Giger
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2022-05-31

Review 5.  Identification of Tumor-Specific MRI Biomarkers Using Machine Learning (ML).

Authors:  Rima Hajjo; Dima A Sabbah; Sanaa K Bardaweel; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2021-04-21

6.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics Analyses for Prediction of High-Grade Histology and Necrosis in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Preliminary Experience.

Authors:  Durgesh K Dwivedi; Yin Xi; Payal Kapur; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Matthew A Lewis; Durga Udayakumar; Robert Rasmussen; Qing Yuan; Aditya Bagrodia; Vitaly Margulis; Michael Fulkerson; James Brugarolas; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2020-05-23       Impact factor: 2.872

Review 7.  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

8.  Multi-marker quantitative radiomics for mass characterization in dedicated breast CT imaging.

Authors:  Marco Caballo; Domenico R Pangallo; Wendelien Sanderink; Andrew M Hernandez; Su Hyun Lyu; Filippo Molinari; John M Boone; Ritse M Mann; Ioannis Sechopoulos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2020-12-10       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  The diagnostic value of a non-contrast computed tomography scan-based radiomics model for acute aortic dissection.

Authors:  Zewang Zhou; Jinquan Yang; Shuntao Wang; Weihao Li; Lei Xie; Yifan Li; Changzheng Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 1.817

10.  Microscopic Tumour Classification by Digital Mammography.

Authors:  Jingjing Yang; Huichao Li; Ning Shi; Qifan Zhang; Yanan Liu
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2021-02-04       Impact factor: 2.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.