| Literature DB >> 33959498 |
Stefania Montemezzi1, Giulio Benetti2, Maria Vittoria Bisighin1, Lucia Camera1, Chiara Zerbato1, Francesca Caumo3, Elena Fiorio4, Sara Zanelli4, Michele Zuffante5, Carlo Cavedon2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To test whether 3T MRI radiomics of breast malignant lesions improves the performance of predictive models of complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy when added to other clinical, histological and radiological information.Entities:
Keywords: DCE; MRI; breast cancer; machine learning; medical imaging; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; radiomics
Year: 2021 PMID: 33959498 PMCID: PMC8093630 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.630780
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Clinical, histological and radiological characteristics of the patients as a function of pathologic response.
| Responders | Non-responders | All | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 20 | 40 | 60 | — |
| | 49.2 (±11.6) | 52,8 (±12.2) | 51.6 (±12.0) | 0.273 |
| | 842 (±270) | 875 (±197) | 864 (±222) | 0,629 |
|
| 8.44 (±5.08) | 6.79 (±5.51) | 7.34 (±5.39) | 0,257 |
|
| 39.7 (±23.0) | 20.0 (±11.3) | 26.6 (±18.5) | 0,0013 |
|
| 12.3 (±23.9) | 34.6 (±33.9) | 27.2 (±37.5) | 0,0046 |
|
| 34.0 (±40.5) | 80.8 (±26.2) | 65.2 (±38.4) | 0,0001 |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 2 | 23 | 25 | 0,0006 |
| 3 | 18 | 17 | 35 | |
|
| ||||
| Pos | 11 | 35 | 46 | 0,0088 |
| Neg | 9 | 5 | 14 | |
|
| ||||
| I | 8 | 27 | 35 | 0,0182 |
| O | 6 | 11 | 17 | |
| R | 6 | 2 | 8 | |
|
| ||||
| I | 16 | 19 | 35 | 0,0254 |
| S | 4 | 21 | 25 | |
|
| ||||
| E | 14 | 33 | 47 | 0,3654 |
| O | 1 | 3 | 4 | |
| RE | 5 | 4 | 9 | |
|
| ||||
| I | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0,6565 |
| II | 3 | 6 | 9 | |
| III | 17 | 31 | 48 | |
|
| ||||
| MC | 6 | 18 | 24 | 0,4543 |
| MF | 5 | 6 | 11 | |
| U | 9 | 16 | 25 |
Data are presented either as mean ± sd or number of patients with relative percentage. Shape: (I)rregular/(O)val/(R)ound; Margin: (I)rregular/(S)piculated; IntEnh: H(e)terogeneous/H(o)mogeneous/(R)im (E)nhancement; Type: (M)ulti(c)entric/(M)ulti(f)ocal/(U)nifocal.
Figure 1LASSO variable selection process. (A) Values of the LASSO regression coefficient as a function of log (Lambda). (B) LOOCV deviance as a function of log (Lambda) and therefore of the number of selected features.
Figure 2(A) Spearman correlation matrix between real variables and (B) Fisher’s p-values matrix between categorical variables.
Figure 3Average AUC of the best 6 models as a function of the class of variables (G1, Rad, Hist, NoRad and All) and classifier (RF, random forest; SVR, Support Vector machines Regression; Logit, Logistic regression). Boxplots represent the median value, interquartile range and extremes.
Figure 4Probability of each variable of being included in a high-performance model, estimated by the frequency with which the variable was selected in one of the 6 best models, as a function of the classifier.
Regression correlation coefficients of the single covariates in the Logit model.
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | Age | Ki67 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0,9 | 1,8 | -1,5 | -2,0 | 0,8 | -0,7 | 1,9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -2,5 | 0,2 | -0,7 | -0,6 | 1,4 | 2,2 | -1,5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| -1,2 | 1,0 | -0,3 | -0,2 | 0,3 | 0,1 | 0,6 |
Values higher than 1 and lower than -1 represent statistically relevant positive and negative correlation of predictors, respectively.