Literature DB >> 34603996

Incorporating the clinical and radiomics features of contrast-enhanced mammography to classify breast lesions: a retrospective study.

Simin Wang1,2, Yuqi Sun3, Ning Mao4, Shaofeng Duan5, Qin Li1,2, Ruimin Li1,2, Tingting Jiang1,2, Zhongyi Wang4, Haizhu Xie4, Yajia Gu1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a promising breast imaging technique. A limited number of studies have focused on the radiomics analysis of CEM. We intended to explore whether a model constructed with both clinical and radiomics features of CEM can better classify benign and malignant breast lesions.
METHODS: This retrospective, double-center study included women who underwent CEM between August 2017 and February 2020. The data from Center 1 were used as training set and the data from Center 2 were used as external testing set (training: testing =2:1). Models were constructed with the clinical, radiomics, and clinical + radiomics features of CEM. The clinical features included patient age and clinical image features interpreted by the radiologists. The radiomics features were extracted from high-energy (HE), low-energy (LE), and dual-energy subtraction (DES) images of CEM. The Mann-Whitney U test, Pearson correlation and Boruta's approach were used to select the radiomics features. Random Forest (RF) and logistic regression were used to establish the models. For the testing set, the areas under the curve (AUCs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed to evaluate the performance of the models. For the training set, the mean AUCs were obtained by performing internal validation for 100 iterations and then compared by the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests.
RESULTS: A total of 226 women (mean age: 47.4±10.1 years) with 226 pathologically proven breast lesions (101 benign; 125 malignant) were included. For the external testing set, the AUCs were 0.964 (95% CI: 0.918-1.000) for the combined model, 0.947 (95% CI: 0.891-0.997) for the radiomics model, and 0.882 (95% CI: 0.803-0.962) for the clinical model. In the internal validation process, the combined model achieved a mean AUC of 0.934±0.030, which was significantly higher than those of the radiomics (mean AUC =0.921±0.031, adjusted P<0.050) and clinical models (mean AUC =0.907±0.036; adjusted P<0.050).
CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating both clinical and radiomics features of CEM may achieve better classification results for breast lesions. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS); Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM); breast; classification; radiomics

Year:  2021        PMID: 34603996      PMCID: PMC8408786          DOI: 10.21037/qims-21-103

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  34 in total

Review 1.  Contrast enhanced mammography: techniques, current results, and potential indications.

Authors:  M B I Lobbes; M L Smidt; J Houwers; V C Tjan-Heijnen; J E Wildberger
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 2.350

Review 2.  Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Stefano Tagliafico; Bianca Bignotti; Federica Rossi; Alessio Signori; Maria Pia Sormani; Francesca Valdora; Massimo Calabrese; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2016-05-07       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Classification of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) images.

Authors:  Shaked Perek; Nahum Kiryati; Gali Zimmerman-Moreno; Miri Sklair-Levy; Eli Konen; Arnaldo Mayer
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-10-26       Impact factor: 2.924

4.  Can we apply the MRI BI-RADS lexicon morphology descriptors on contrast-enhanced spectral mammography?

Authors:  Rasha M Kamal; Maha H Helal; Sahar M Mansour; Marwa A Haggag; Omniya M Nada; Iman G Farahat; Nelly H Alieldin
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  Contrast mammography in clinical practice: Current uses and potential diagnostic dilemmas.

Authors:  Kathryn Zamora; Elizabeth Allen; Brittany Hermecz
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2020-11-06       Impact factor: 1.605

6.  Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Screening Breast Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiao Zhu; Jun-Ming Huang; Kun Zhang; Long-Jie Xia; Lan Feng; Ping Yang; Meng-Ya Zhang; Wei Xiao; Hui-Xia Lin; Ying-Hua Yu
Journal:  Clin Breast Cancer       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 3.225

7.  Low energy mammogram obtained in contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is comparable to routine full-field digital mammography (FFDM).

Authors:  Mark A Francescone; Maxine S Jochelson; D David Dershaw; Janice S Sung; Mary C Hughes; Junting Zheng; Chaya Moskowitz; Elizabeth A Morris
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 3.528

8.  Evaluation of low-energy contrast-enhanced spectral mammography images by comparing them to full-field digital mammography using EUREF image quality criteria.

Authors:  U C Lalji; C R L P N Jeukens; I Houben; P J Nelemans; R E van Engen; E van Wylick; R G H Beets-Tan; J E Wildberger; L E Paulis; M B I Lobbes
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-03-27       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data.

Authors:  Robert J Gillies; Paul E Kinahan; Hedvig Hricak
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography-Based Radiomics Nomogram for Identifying Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions of Sub-1 cm.

Authors:  Fan Lin; Zhongyi Wang; Kun Zhang; Ping Yang; Heng Ma; Yinghong Shi; Meijie Liu; Qinglin Wang; Jingjing Cui; Ning Mao; Haizhu Xie
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-10-30       Impact factor: 6.244

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.