| Literature DB >> 31388834 |
Marta D'Alonzo1, Laura Martincich2, Agnese Fenoglio1, Valentina Giannini3,4, Lisa Cellini5, Viola Liberale1, Nicoletta Biglia1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative evaluation of nipple-areola complex (NAC) tumour involvement is crucial to select patients candidates for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Our aim was to validate a previously developed automated method able to compute the three-dimensional (3D) tumour-to-NAC distance (the most predictive parameter of nipple involvement), using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) datasets acquired with a scanner and protocol different from those of the development phase.Entities:
Keywords: Algorithm; Breast neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mastectomy; Nipple
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31388834 PMCID: PMC6684692 DOI: 10.1186/s41747-019-0108-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol Exp ISSN: 2509-9280
Fig. 1Patient selection diagram. N number, MRI magnetic resonance imaging
Differences between scanner, devices, and technical parameters of dynamic contrast-enhanced acquisition used in the current study and those used in the work by Giannini et al. [16]
| Current study | Giannini et al. [ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Equipment | 1.5-T Ingenia; Philips Medical Systems, Best, The Netherlands | 1.5-T HDx Signa Excite, GE HealthCare Milwaukee, WI, USA | |
| Coil | Phased-array 16-channel | Phased 8-channel coil | |
| DCE | Slice thickness (mm) | 3 | 2.6 |
| Acquisition plane | Axial | Axial/sagittal | |
| Repetition time (ms) | 5.1 | 5.5/4.8 | |
| Echo time (ms) | 2.5 | 2.6/1.9 | |
| Flip angle | 10° | 10° | |
| Field of view | According to breast volume | According to breast volume | |
| Acquisition matrix | 340 × 340 | 416 × 416/416 × 256 | |
| Pixel size (mm2) | 0.7865 × 0.7865 | Pixel 0.625 × 0.625 | |
| Temporal resolution (s) | 70 | 90 | |
| T2-weighted | Slice thickness (mm) | 3 | 3 |
| Acquisition plane | Sagittal | Sagittal | |
| Repetition time (ms) | 2000 | 3360 | |
| Echo time (ms) | 209 | 70 | |
| Flip angle | 90° | 90° | |
| Field of view | According to breast volume | According to breast volume | |
| Acquisition matrix | 340 × 340 | 416 × 256 | |
| Pixel size (mm) | 0.8536 × 0.8536 | 0.4297 × 0.4297 | |
Fig. 2Pipeline of the segmentation algorithm. a Maximum intensity projection (MIP) of the T2-weighted dataset. b Segmentation of the nipple-areola complex (NAC) superimposed to the T2-weighted MIP. c B-spline curve that represents the base of the NAC superimposed to the T2-weighted MIP (the point used to compute the distance is highlighted by using a green cross). d Segmentation of the breasts superimposed to the second subtracted contrast-enhanced frame. e Segmentation results before applying the false-positive reduction step. f Segmentation results after applying the false-positive reduction step (the yellow box represent the region that the radiologist selected as tumour). g The outer edge of the selected tumour
Fig. 4Segmentation of the tumour and final mask. a Axial image of the most representative slice. b Final mask of segmentation of the tumour, selected by the radiologist
Fig. 3Segmentation of the nipple and final mask of the nipple-areola complex. a MIP image (maximum intensity projection) performed on T2-weighted image and seed selection. b Segmentation of the nipple (region growing technique) and final mask of the nipple areola complex. c Interpolation of points on nipple base
Fig. 5Comparison between receiver operating characteristic curves for the performance of automatic (blue) and manual (green) tumour-to-nipple-areola complex distance
Diagnostic performance of the two different methods for computing tumour-to-nipple-areola complex distance at different cut-off values
| Parameters | Automatic | Manual | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best (≤ 30 mm) | ≤ 5 mm | ≤ 10 mm | ≤ 20 mm | Best (≤ 21 mm) | ≤ 5 mm | ≤ 10 mm | ≤ 20 mm | ||
| Sensitivity (%) | 78.3 | 8.7 | 26.1 | 34.8 | 73.9 | 43.5 | 43.5 | 73.9 | 0.537 |
| Specificity (%) | 71.4 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 85.7 | 61.2 | 95.9 | 85.7 | 61.2 | 0.197 |
| PPV (%) | 56.3 | 100. | 100.0 | 53.3 | 47.2 | 83.3 | 58.8 | 47.2 | 0.276 |
| NPV (%) | 87.5 | 70.0 | 74.3 | 73.7 | 83.3 | 78.3 | 76.4 | 83.3 | 0.477 |
| Accuracy (%) | 73.6 | 70.8 | 76.4 | 69.5 | 65.3 | 79.2 | 72.2 | 65.3 | 0.281 |
PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value
Comparison between the diagnostic performance obtained in the current study and those obtained in the previous study by Giannini et al. [16]
| Index | Current study (best cut-off ≤ 30 mm) | Giannini et al. [ |
|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | 78 | 72 |
| Specificity (%) | 72 | 80 |
| Positive predictive value (%) | 56 | 56 |
| Negative predictive value (%) | 88 | 89 |
| Accuracy | 74 | 78 |
Fig. 6Example of nipple masks not perfectly segmented by the algorithm. a Example 1. b Example 2