Literature DB >> 32803166

The Value of Patient and Tumor Factors in Predicting Preoperative Breast MRI Outcomes.

Habib Rahbar1, Daniel S Hippe1, Ahmed Alaa1, Safia H Cheeney1, Mihaela van der Schaar1, Savannah C Partridge1, Christoph I Lee1.   

Abstract

Purpose: To identify patient and tumor features that predict true-positive, false-positive, and negative breast preoperative MRI outcomes. Materials and
Methods: Using a breast MRI database from a large regional cancer center, the authors retrospectively identified all women with unilateral breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI from January 2005 to February 2015. A total of 1396 women with complete data were included. Patient features (ie, age, breast density) and index tumor features (ie, type, grade, hormone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2/neu, Ki-67) were extracted and compared with preoperative MRI outcomes (ie, true positive, false positive, negative) using univariate (ie, Fisher exact) and multivariate machine learning approaches (ie, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, AutoPrognosis). Overall prediction performance was summarized using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), calculated using internal validation techniques (bootstrap and cross-validation) to account for model training.
Results: At the examination level, 181 additional cancers were identified among 1396 total preoperative MRI examinations (median patient age, 56 years; range, 25-94 years), resulting in a positive predictive value for biopsy of 43% (181 true-positive findings of 419 core-needle biopsies). In univariate analysis, no patient or tumor feature was associated with a true-positive outcome (P > .05), although greater mammographic density (P = .022) and younger age (< 50 years, P = .025) were associated with false-positive examinations. Machine learning approaches provided weak performance for predicting true-positive, false-positive, and negative examinations (AUC range, 0.50-0.57).
Conclusion: Commonly used patient and tumor factors driving expert opinion for the use of preoperative MRI provide limited predictive value for determining preoperative MRI outcomes in women. Supplemental material is available for this article. © RSNA, 2020See also the commentary by Grimm in this issue. 2020 by the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32803166      PMCID: PMC7398118          DOI: 10.1148/rycan.2020190099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer        ISSN: 2638-616X


  24 in total

1.  The Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI on Surgical Management of Women with Newly Diagnosed Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  Diana L Lam; Jacob Smith; Savannah C Partridge; Adrienne Kim; Sara H Javid; Daniel S Hippe; Constance D Lehman; Janie M Lee; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2019-07-05       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 2.  Meta-analysis of pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and surgical treatment for breast cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Robin M Turner; Monica Morrow
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis.

Authors:  María Nieves Plana; Carmen Carreira; Alfonso Muriel; Miguel Chiva; Víctor Abraira; Jose Ignacio Emparanza; Xavier Bonfill; Javier Zamora
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-08-17       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Overview of the role of pre-operative breast MRI in the absence of evidence on patient outcomes.

Authors:  Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.380

5.  MR imaging of the ipsilateral breast in women with percutaneously proven breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura Liberman; Elizabeth A Morris; D David Dershaw; Andrea F Abramson; Lee K Tan
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Lorena Gutierrez; Moriel S NessAiver; W Bradford Carter; Mythreyi Bhargavan; Rebecca S Lewis; Olga B Ioffe
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2004-10-14       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Gayle F Tillman; Susan G Orel; Mitchell D Schnall; Delray J Schultz; Jacqueline E Tan; Lawrence J Solin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2002-08-15       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 8.  Machine Learning in Medicine.

Authors:  Rahul C Deo
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 9.  Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto; Petra Macaskill; Sarah J Lord; Ruth M Warren; J Michael Dixon; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging.

Authors:  R M Mann; C K Kuhl; K Kinkel; C Boetes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-04-04       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  2 in total

1.  Major Factors Driving Expert Opinion on Preoperative Breast MRI Do Not Predict Additional Disease.

Authors:  Lars J Grimm
Journal:  Radiol Imaging Cancer       Date:  2020-07-10

2.  Accuracy of Preoperative Breast MRI Versus Conventional Imaging in Measuring Pathologic Extent of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Keegan K Hovis; Janie M Lee; Daniel S Hippe; Hannah Linden; Meghan R Flanagan; Mark R Kilgore; Janis Yee; Savannah C Partridge; Habib Rahbar
Journal:  J Breast Imaging       Date:  2021-04-29
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.