| Literature DB >> 32933585 |
Meijie Liu1,2, Ning Mao2, Heng Ma2, Jianjun Dong2, Kun Zhang2, Kaili Che2, Shaofeng Duan3, Xuexi Zhang3, Yinghong Shi4, Haizhu Xie5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To establish pharmacokinetic parameters and a radiomics model based on dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for predicting sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis in patients with breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pharmacokinetic parameters; Radiomics; Sentinel lymph node
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32933585 PMCID: PMC7493182 DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-00342-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Imaging ISSN: 1470-7330 Impact factor: 3.909
Fig. 1Radiomics workflow
Radiomic features derived from the images
| Calculation Methods | Radiomics Features | Feature Numbers |
|---|---|---|
| Histogram | Frequency size, Quantile, Variance, Kurtosis, Skewness, etc. | 42 |
| GLSZM | Size Zone Variability, Large Area Emphasis, High Intensity Emphasis etc. | 11 |
| Haralick matrix | HaraEntroy, Contrast, Inverse Difference Moment, Sum Average, Sum Variance | 10 |
| Form factor matrix | Maximum 3D Diameter, Spherical Disproportion, Sphericity, Surface Area, etc. | 9 |
| GLCM | ClusterProminence_AllDirection_offset1, Correlation_AllDirection_offset1, GLCMEnergy_angle45_offset4, etc. | 144 |
| RLM | Grey Level Non-Uniformity All Direction, High Grey Level Run Emphasis Angle Offset, Run Length Non-uniformity Angle Offset, etc. | 180 |
Clinical and Histopathological Characteristics
| Patients with positive SLN ( | Patients with negative SLN( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) | 55.71 ± 8.6 | 54.40 ± 11.1 | 0.483 |
| Tumor size (mean ± SD) | 2.24 ± 1.0 | 2.21 ± 1.2 | 0.698 |
| Histological grade | 0.171 | ||
| I | 4 (5.15%) | 25 (11.6%) | |
| II | 33 (42.3%) | 41 (47.7%) | |
| III | 41 (52.6%) | 20 (40.7%) | |
| Molecular subtype | 0.220 | ||
| Luminal A | 30 (38.5%) | 31 (36%) | |
| Luminal B | 37 (47.4%) | 33 (38.4%) | |
| HER2 over-expression | 6 (7.7%) | 8 (9.3%) | |
| Basal-like | 5 (6.4%) | 14 (16.3%) |
Fig. 2LASSO algorithm for feature selection. a Selection of adjustment parameters (lambda) in the LASSO model used 10-fold cross-validation via minimum criteria; b LASSO coefficient profiles of the features against the log (λ)
Fig. 3ROC curves of prediction models in the training (a) and validation (b) cohorts
Diagnostic performance of validation cohort
| accuracy | sensitivity | specificity | |
|---|---|---|---|
| pharmacokinetic parameters model | 0.69 | 0.71 | 0.77 |
| Radiomics model | 0.67 | 0.64 | 0.79 |
| Combined model | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.81 |