OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to use adjunctive classes to improve a predictive model whose performance is limited by the common problems of small numbers of primary cases, high feature dimensionality, and poor class separability. Specifically, our clinical task is to use mammographic features to predict whether ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) identified at needle core biopsy will be later upstaged or shown to contain invasive breast cancer. METHODS: To improve the prediction of pure DCIS (negative) versus upstaged DCIS (positive) cases, this study considers the adjunctive roles of two related classes: atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), a non-cancer type of breast abnormity, and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), with 113 computer vision based mammographic features extracted from each case. To improve the baseline Model A's classification of pure vs. upstaged DCIS, we designed three different strategies (Models B, C, D) with different ways of embedding features or inputs. RESULTS: Based on ROC analysis, the baseline Model A performed with AUC of 0.614 (95% CI, 0.496-0.733). All three new models performed better than the baseline, with domain adaptation (Model D) performing the best with an AUC of 0.697 (95% CI, 0.595-0.797). CONCLUSION: We improved the prediction performance of DCIS upstaging by embedding two related pathology classes in different training phases. SIGNIFICANCE: The three new strategies of embedding related class data all outperformed the baseline model, thus demonstrating not only feature similarities among these different classes, but also the potential for improving classification by using other related classes.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study is to use adjunctive classes to improve a predictive model whose performance is limited by the common problems of small numbers of primary cases, high feature dimensionality, and poor class separability. Specifically, our clinical task is to use mammographic features to predict whether ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) identified at needle core biopsy will be later upstaged or shown to contain invasive breast cancer. METHODS: To improve the prediction of pure DCIS (negative) versus upstaged DCIS (positive) cases, this study considers the adjunctive roles of two related classes: atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), a non-cancer type of breast abnormity, and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), with 113 computer vision based mammographic features extracted from each case. To improve the baseline Model A's classification of pure vs. upstaged DCIS, we designed three different strategies (Models B, C, D) with different ways of embedding features or inputs. RESULTS: Based on ROC analysis, the baseline Model A performed with AUC of 0.614 (95% CI, 0.496-0.733). All three new models performed better than the baseline, with domain adaptation (Model D) performing the best with an AUC of 0.697 (95% CI, 0.595-0.797). CONCLUSION: We improved the prediction performance of DCIS upstaging by embedding two related pathology classes in different training phases. SIGNIFICANCE: The three new strategies of embedding related class data all outperformed the baseline model, thus demonstrating not only feature similarities among these different classes, but also the potential for improving classification by using other related classes.
Authors: Bibo Shi; Lars J Grimm; Maciej A Mazurowski; Jay A Baker; Jeffrey R Marks; Lorraine M King; Carlo C Maley; E Shelley Hwang; Joseph Y Lo Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2017-05-11 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Zhe Zhu; Michael Harowicz; Jun Zhang; Ashirbani Saha; Lars J Grimm; E Shelley Hwang; Maciej A Mazurowski Journal: Comput Biol Med Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 4.589
Authors: Pierrick Coupé; Simon F Eskildsen; José V Manjón; Vladimir S Fonov; Jens C Pruessner; Michèle Allard; D Louis Collins Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Xiao Da; Jon B Toledo; Jarcy Zee; David A Wolk; Sharon X Xie; Yangming Ou; Amanda Shacklett; Paraskevi Parmpi; Leslie Shaw; John Q Trojanowski; Christos Davatzikos Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-11-28 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Anna K Casasent; Mathilde M Almekinders; Charlotta Mulder; Proteeti Bhattacharjee; Deborah Collyar; Alastair M Thompson; Jos Jonkers; Esther H Lips; Jacco van Rheenen; E Shelley Hwang; Serena Nik-Zainal; Nicholas E Navin; Jelle Wesseling Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 69.800
Authors: Rui Hou; Lars J Grimm; Maciej A Mazurowski; Jeffrey R Marks; Lorraine M King; Carlo C Maley; Thomas Lynch; Marja van Oirsouw; Keith Rogers; Nicholas Stone; Matthew Wallis; Jonas Teuwen; Jelle Wesseling; E Shelley Hwang; Joseph Y Lo Journal: Radiology Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 29.146