| Literature DB >> 35314626 |
Ga Eun Park1, Sung Hun Kim1, Eun Byul Lee1, Yoonho Nam2, Wonmo Sung3.
Abstract
The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate the association between ipsilateral recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and radiomics features from DCIS and contralateral normal breast on contrast enhanced breast MR imaging. A total of 163 patients with DCIS who underwent preoperative MR imaging between January 2010 and December 2014 were included (training cohort; n = 117, validation cohort; n = 46). Radiomics features were extracted from whole tumor volume of DCIS on early dynamic T1-subtraction images and from the contralateral normal breast on precontrast T1 and early dynamic T1-subtraction images. After feature selection, a Rad-score was established by LASSO Cox regression model. Performance of Rad-score was evaluated by the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and Kaplan Meier curve with log rank test. The Rad-score was significantly associated with ipsilateral recurrence free survival (RFS). The low-risk group with a low Rad-score showed higher ipsilateral RFS than the high-risk group with a high Rad-score in both training and validation cohorts (p < 0.01). The Rad-score based on radiomics features from DCIS and contralateral normal breast on breast MR imaging showed the potential for prediction of ipsilateral RFS of DCIS.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; magnetic resonance imaging; quantitative imaging
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35314626 PMCID: PMC8938812 DOI: 10.3390/tomography8020049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Tomography ISSN: 2379-1381
Figure 1Flow chart for study population and exclusion criteria.
Figure 2Overall process of radiomics features extraction.
Baseline characteristics in the recurrence and non-recurrence.
| Patients with No Recurrence ( | Patients with Ipsilateral Recurrence ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 52.9 ± 9.8 | 46.5 ± 7.5 | 0.05 |
| Last outpatient follow-up (months) | 82.2 ± 26.5 | 51.7 ± 36.1 | 0.009 |
| Surgery type | 0.109 | ||
| Total mastectomy | 100 | 9 | |
| BCS | 53 | 1 | |
| Radiation therapy | 0.343 | ||
| No | 100 | 8 | |
| Yes | 53 | 2 | |
| Endocrine therapy | 0.607 | ||
| No | 111 | 8 | |
| Yes | 42 | 2 | |
| DCIS size | 2.51 ± 1.89 | 2.35 ± 1.99 | 0.814 |
| DCIS nuclear grade | 0.075 | ||
| Non-high | 75 | 2 | |
| High | 78 | 8 | |
| Comedo necrosis | 0.128 | ||
| Negative | 50 | 1 | |
| Positive | 101 | 9 | |
| ER | 0.078 | ||
| Negative | 115 | 7 | |
| Positive | 38 | 3 | |
| PR | 0.765 | ||
| Positive | 100 | 7 | |
| Negative | 53 | 3 | |
| HER2 | 0.479 | ||
| Negative | 108 | 6 | |
| Positive | 45 | 4 | |
| Ki-67 (%) | 0.669 | ||
| <14% | 94 | 5 | |
| ≥14% | 56 | 4 | |
| IHC type | 0.562 | ||
| Luminal | 114 | 7 | |
| HER2-enriched | 26 | 3 | |
| Basal-like | 12 | 0 | |
| VNPG | |||
| Low risk | 38 | 1 | 0.287 |
| Non-low risk | 115 | 9 | |
| Comet classification | 0.031 | ||
| Low risk | 68 | 1 | |
| Non-low risk | 84 | 9 | |
| Resection margin (2 mm) | 0.078 | ||
| Negative | 136 | 7 | |
| Positive | 17 | 3 | |
| Fibroglandular tissue (FGT) | 0.743 | ||
| Almost entirely fat, Scattered | 54 | 3 | |
| Heterogenoues, Extreme | 99 | 7 | |
| Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) | 0.028 | ||
| Minimal, Mild | 122 | 5 | |
| Mild, Marked | 31 | 5 |
Results are presented as number (percentage) for categorical variables and mean (SD) for continuous variables. p values were calculated using Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.
Patient characteristics in the training and validation cohorts.
| Training Cohort | Validation Cohort | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 53.5 ± 10.2 | 50.1 ± 8.13 | 0.12 |
| Surgery type | 0.41 | ||
| Total mastectomy | 42 | 12 | |
| BCS | 75 | 34 | |
| Radiation therapy | 0.41 | ||
| No | 44 | 11 | |
| Yes | 73 | 35 | |
| Endocrine therapy | 0.10 | ||
| No | 28 | 12 | |
| Yes | 78 | 41 | |
| Ipsilateral recurrence | 1 * | ||
| No recurrence | 110 | 43 | |
| Recurrence | 7 | 3 | |
| DCIS size (cm) | 2.52 ± 1.88 | 2.43 ± 1.94 | 0.62 |
| DCIS nuclear grade | 0.34 | ||
| Non-high | 58 | 19 | |
| High | 59 | 27 | |
| Comedo necrosis | 0.17 | ||
| Negative | 41 | 11 | |
| Positive | 76 | 35 | |
| ER | 0.80 | ||
| Negative | 29 | 12 | |
| Positive | 88 | 34 | |
| PR | 0.86 | ||
| Negative | 34 | 20 | |
| Positive | 72 | 33 | |
| HER2 | 0.23 | ||
| Negative | 85 | 29 | |
| Positive | 32 | 17 | |
| Ki-67 (%) | 14.8 ± 14.7 | 10.9 ± 8.21 | 0.41 |
| IHC_type | 0.69 | ||
| Luminal | 88 | 34 | |
| HER2-enriched | 19 | 10 | |
| Basal-like | 10 | 2 | |
| VNPG | 0.22 | ||
| Low risk | 31 | 8 | |
| Non-low risk | 86 | 38 | |
| COMET classification | 0.33 | ||
| Low risk | 53 | 17 | |
| Non-low risk | 64 | 29 | |
| Resection margin (2 mm) | 0.85 | ||
| Negative | 103 | 40 | |
| Positive | 14 | 6 | |
| Fibroglandular tissue (FGT) | 0.79 | ||
| Almost entirely fat, Scattered | 43 | 14 | |
| Heterogeneous, Extreme | 74 | 32 | |
| Background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) | 0.70 | ||
| Minimal, Mild | 93 | 34 | |
| Moderate, Marked | 24 | 12 |
Results are presented as number (percentage) for categorical variables and mean (SD) for continuous variables. p values were calculated using Pearson’s Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test * for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables.
Figure 3ROC curve of (a) Rad-score (training cohort), (b) Rad-score (validation cohort), (c) Rad-score + age (training cohort), (d) Rad-score + age (validation cohort), (e) Rad-score + COMET classification (training cohort), (f) Rad-score + COMET classification (validation cohort) * colored area = 95% CI (confidence interval).
Figure 4Distribution of the Rad-score according to ipsilateral recurrence in training (a) and validation (b) cohorts red line = cut off value, 0 = no recurrence, 1 = recurrence group.
Figure 5Kaplan-Meier analysis according to the risk groups in training (a) and validation (b) cohorts.