Nina Pötsch1, Matthias Dietzel2, Panagiotis Kapetas1, Paola Clauser1, Katja Pinker3, Stephan Ellmann2, Michael Uder2, Thomas Helbich1, Pascal A T Baltzer4. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Institute of Radiology, Erlangen University Hospital, Maximiliansplatz 2, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringerguertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Due to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (bMRI) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The high number of detected lesions poses a significant logistic challenge in clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate a temporally and spatially resolved (4D) radiomics approach to distinguish benign from malignant enhancing breast lesions and thereby avoid unnecessary biopsies. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with MRI-suspicious findings (BI-RADS 4/5). Two blinded readers analyzed DCE images using a commercially available software, automatically extracting BI-RADS curve types and pharmacokinetic enhancement features. After principal component analysis (PCA), a neural network-derived A.I. classifier to discriminate benign from malignant lesions was constructed and tested using a random split simple approach. The rate of avoidable biopsies was evaluated at exploratory cutoffs (C1, 100%, and C2, ≥ 95% sensitivity). RESULTS: Four hundred seventy (295 malignant) lesions in 329 female patients (mean age 55.1 years, range 18-85 years) were examined. Eighty-six DCE features were extracted based on automated volumetric lesion analysis. Five independent component features were extracted using PCA. The A.I. classifier achieved a significant (p < .001) accuracy to distinguish benign from malignant lesion within the test sample (AUC: 83.5%; 95% CI: 76.8-89.0%). Applying identified cutoffs on testing data not included in training dataset showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign lesions by 14.5% (C1) and 36.2% (C2). CONCLUSION: The investigated automated 4D radiomics approach resulted in an accurate A.I. classifier able to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Its application could have avoided unnecessary biopsies. KEY POINTS: • Principal component analysis of the extracted volumetric and temporally resolved (4D) DCE markers favored pharmacokinetic modeling derived features. • An A.I. classifier based on 86 extracted DCE features achieved a good to excellent diagnostic performance as measured by the area under the ROC curve with 80.6% (training dataset) and 83.5% (testing dataset). • Testing the resulting A.I. classifier showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign breast lesions by up to 36.2%, p < .001 at the cost of up to 4.5% (n = 4) false negative low-risk cancers.
OBJECTIVES: Due to its high sensitivity, DCE MRI of the breast (bMRI) is increasingly used for both screening and assessment purposes. The high number of detected lesions poses a significant logistic challenge in clinical practice. The aim was to evaluate a temporally and spatially resolved (4D) radiomics approach to distinguish benign from malignant enhancing breast lesions and thereby avoid unnecessary biopsies. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with MRI-suspicious findings (BI-RADS 4/5). Two blinded readers analyzed DCE images using a commercially available software, automatically extracting BI-RADS curve types and pharmacokinetic enhancement features. After principal component analysis (PCA), a neural network-derived A.I. classifier to discriminate benign from malignant lesions was constructed and tested using a random split simple approach. The rate of avoidable biopsies was evaluated at exploratory cutoffs (C1, 100%, and C2, ≥ 95% sensitivity). RESULTS: Four hundred seventy (295 malignant) lesions in 329 female patients (mean age 55.1 years, range 18-85 years) were examined. Eighty-six DCE features were extracted based on automated volumetric lesion analysis. Five independent component features were extracted using PCA. The A.I. classifier achieved a significant (p < .001) accuracy to distinguish benign from malignant lesion within the test sample (AUC: 83.5%; 95% CI: 76.8-89.0%). Applying identified cutoffs on testing data not included in training dataset showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign lesions by 14.5% (C1) and 36.2% (C2). CONCLUSION: The investigated automated 4D radiomics approach resulted in an accurate A.I. classifier able to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Its application could have avoided unnecessary biopsies. KEY POINTS: • Principal component analysis of the extracted volumetric and temporally resolved (4D) DCE markers favored pharmacokinetic modeling derived features. • An A.I. classifier based on 86 extracted DCE features achieved a good to excellent diagnostic performance as measured by the area under the ROC curve with 80.6% (training dataset) and 83.5% (testing dataset). • Testing the resulting A.I. classifier showed the potential to lower the number of unnecessary biopsies of benign breast lesions by up to 36.2%, p < .001 at the cost of up to 4.5% (n = 4) false negative low-risk cancers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast MRI; Breast biopsies; Breast cancer; Neural network; Principal component analysis
Authors: K Pinker; H Bickel; T H Helbich; S Gruber; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; Z Bago-Horvath; M Weber; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marije F Bakker; Stéphanie V de Lange; Ruud M Pijnappel; Ritse M Mann; Petra H M Peeters; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Marleen J Emaus; Claudette E Loo; Robertus H C Bisschops; Marc B I Lobbes; Matthijn D F de Jong; Katya M Duvivier; Jeroen Veltman; Nico Karssemeijer; Harry J de Koning; Paul J van Diest; Willem P T M Mali; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Wouter B Veldhuis; Carla H van Gils Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Carla Boetes; Bettina Borisch; Thomas Decker; Massimo Federico; Fiona J Gilbert; Thomas Helbich; Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner; Werner A Kaiser; Michael J Kerin; Robert E Mansel; Lorenza Marotti; Laura Martincich; Louis Mauriac; Hanne Meijers-Heijboer; Roberto Orecchia; Pietro Panizza; Antonio Ponti; Arnie D Purushotham; Peter Regitnig; Marco Rosselli Del Turco; Fabienne Thibault; Robin Wilson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-03-19 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Erik Verburg; Carla H van Gils; Marije F Bakker; Max A Viergever; Ruud M Pijnappel; Wouter B Veldhuis; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Claudio Spick; Melanie Schernthaner; Katja Pinker; Panagiotis Kapetas; Maria Bernathova; Stephan H Polanec; Hubert Bickel; Georg J Wengert; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paola Clauser; Ritse Mann; Alexandra Athanasiou; Helmut Prosch; Katja Pinker; Matthias Dietzel; Thomas H Helbich; Michael Fuchsjäger; Julia Camps-Herrero; Francesco Sardanelli; Gabor Forrai; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher E Comstock; Constantine Gatsonis; Gillian M Newstead; Bradley S Snyder; Ilana F Gareen; Jennifer T Bergin; Habib Rahbar; Janice S Sung; Christina Jacobs; Jennifer A Harvey; Mary H Nicholson; Robert C Ward; Jacqueline Holt; Andrew Prather; Kathy D Miller; Mitchell D Schnall; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Xueping Jing; Monique D Dorrius; Mirjam Wielema; Paul E Sijens; Matthijs Oudkerk; Peter van Ooijen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Alexandros Vamvakas; Dimitra Tsivaka; Andreas Logothetis; Katerina Vassiou; Ioannis Tsougos Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022 Jan-Dec