Maciej A Mazurowski1, Ashirbani Saha1, Michael R Harowicz1,2, Elizabeth Hope Cain1, Jeffrey R Marks1,3, P Kelly Marcom1,4. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While important in diagnosis of breast cancer, the scientific assessment of the role of imaging in prognosis of outcomes and treatment planning is limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential of using quantitative imaging variables for stratifying risk of distant recurrence in breast cancer patients. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: In all, 892 female invasive breast cancer patients. SEQUENCE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with field strength 1.5 T and 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Computer vision algorithms were applied to extract a comprehensive set of 529 imaging features quantifying size, shape, enhancement patterns, and heterogeneity of the tumors and the surrounding tissue. Using a development set with 446 cases, we selected 20 imaging features with high prognostic value. STATISTICAL TESTS: We evaluated the imaging features using an independent test set with 446 cases. The principal statistical measure was a concordance index between individual imaging features and patient distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS). RESULTS: The strongest association with DRFS that persisted after controlling for known prognostic clinical and pathology variables was found for signal enhancement ratio (SER) partial tumor volume (concordance index [C] = 0.768, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.679-0.856), tumor major axis length (C = 0.742, 95% CI: 0.650-0.834), kurtosis of the SER map within tumor (C = 0.640, 95% CI: 0.521-0.760), tumor cluster shade (C = 0.313, 95% CI: 0.216-0.410), and washin rate information measure of correlation (C = 0.702, 95% CI: 0.601-0.803). DATA CONCLUSION: Quantitative assessment of breast cancer features seen in a routine breast MRI might be able to be used for assessment of risk of distant recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
BACKGROUND: While important in diagnosis of breast cancer, the scientific assessment of the role of imaging in prognosis of outcomes and treatment planning is limited. PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential of using quantitative imaging variables for stratifying risk of distant recurrence in breast cancerpatients. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: In all, 892 female invasive breast cancerpatients. SEQUENCE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with field strength 1.5 T and 3 T. ASSESSMENT: Computer vision algorithms were applied to extract a comprehensive set of 529 imaging features quantifying size, shape, enhancement patterns, and heterogeneity of the tumors and the surrounding tissue. Using a development set with 446 cases, we selected 20 imaging features with high prognostic value. STATISTICAL TESTS: We evaluated the imaging features using an independent test set with 446 cases. The principal statistical measure was a concordance index between individual imaging features and patient distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS). RESULTS: The strongest association with DRFS that persisted after controlling for known prognostic clinical and pathology variables was found for signal enhancement ratio (SER) partial tumor volume (concordance index [C] = 0.768, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.679-0.856), tumor major axis length (C = 0.742, 95% CI: 0.650-0.834), kurtosis of the SER map within tumor (C = 0.640, 95% CI: 0.521-0.760), tumor cluster shade (C = 0.313, 95% CI: 0.216-0.410), and washin rate information measure of correlation (C = 0.702, 95% CI: 0.601-0.803). DATA CONCLUSION: Quantitative assessment of breast cancer features seen in a routine breast MRI might be able to be used for assessment of risk of distant recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Jessica E Gibbs; Ying Lu; Laura J Esserman; Debasish Tripathy; Dulcy S Wolverton; Hope S Rugo; E Shelley Hwang; Cheryl A Ewing; Nola M Hylton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lawrence J Solin; Susan G Orel; Wei-Ting Hwang; Eleanor E Harris; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Alphonse G Taghian; Matthew S Katz; Andrzej Niemierko; Rita F Abi Raad; Whitney L Boon; Jennifer R Bellon; Julia S Wong; Barbara L Smith; Jay R Harris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-04-14 Impact factor: 44.544