| Literature DB >> 35664741 |
Aqiao Xu1, Xiufeng Chu2, Shengjian Zhang3, Jing Zheng1, Dabao Shi1, Shasha Lv1, Feng Li4, Xiaobo Weng1.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the feasibility of radiomics in predicting molecular subtype of breast invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) based on dynamic contrast enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI).Entities:
Keywords: LASSO regression algorithm; breast cancer; infiltration; omics analysis; radiomics
Year: 2022 PMID: 35664741 PMCID: PMC9160981 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.799232
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Figure 1Patient workflow.
Clinical and histopathologic characteristics of patients grouped by molecular subtypes.
| Characteristics | Total patients (N = 223, %) | Molecular subtypes | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR+/Luminal (N = 116, %) | HER2-enriched (N = 71, %) | TNBC (N = 36, %) | |||
| Patient age | 50.07 ± 10.48 | 51.62 ± 11.12 | 51.15 ± 8.98 | 45.91 ± 10.23 | 0.06 |
| Histological grades: | |||||
| Stage I | 17 (7.62) | 12 (10.34) | 2 (2.82) | 3 (8.33) | 0.14 |
| Ki-67 | 37.42 ± 24.42 | 24.09 ± 16.48 | 45.91 ± 21.18 | 63.88 ± 23.17 | 0.01 |
| Lymph node metastasis: | |||||
| Yes | 106 (47.5) | 56 (47.8) | 35 (49.3) | 16 (44.4) | 0.03 |
| Menopause: | |||||
| No | 83 (37.2) | 41 (35.3) | 25 (35.2) | 17 (47.2) | 0.399 |
| Yes | 140 (62.8) | 75 (64.7) | 46 (64.8) | 19 (52.8) | |
| Position: | 0.610 | ||||
| Central region | 23 (10.3) | 12 (10.3) | 5 (7.04) | 6 (16.7) | |
| Upper_right | 63 (28.2) | 33 (28.4) | 19 (26.8) | 11 (30.6) | |
| Lower_right | 27 (12.1) | 14 (12.1) | 12 (16.9) | 1 (2.78) | |
| Upper_left | 82 (36.8) | 42 (36.2) | 26 (36.6) | 14 (38.9) | |
| Lower_left | 28 (12.6) | 15 (12.9) | 9 (12.7) | 4 (11.1) | |
Figure 2(A) Feature coefficients corresponding to the value of parameter λ. Each curve represents the change trajectory of each independent variable. (B) The most valuable features were screened out by tuning λ using LASSO regression with 10-fold cross-validation via minimum binomial deviation. The dotted vertical line represents the optimal log (λ) value. (C) The 8 selected radiomic features with the most discriminative value according to the best penalty parameter (λ).
Analysis of the selected texture features in the training and test sets.
| Characteristics | Training set | Test set | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| original_glcm_ClusterShade | 1551.28 ± 367.89 | 1426.08 ± 355.01 | 0.09 |
| original_shape_Maximum2DDiameterRow | 32.32 ± 16.40 | 29.56 ± 12.31 | 0.23 |
| original_firstorder_Skewness | -0.22 ± 0.51 | -9.24 ± 0.45 | 0.13 |
| wavelet.LHL_firstorder_Kurtosis | 3.83 ± 1.42 | 3.87 ± 1.28 | 0.26 |
| original_glcm_Correlation | 0.27 ± 0.16 | 0.23 ± 013 | 0.15 |
| wavelet-LLL_glcm_Autocorrelation | 14619.04 ± 7738.10 | 15728.27 ± 8115.49 | 0.08 |
| wavelet-LLL_glrlm_RunEntropy | 6.74+0.69 | 6.67 ± 0.63 | 0.35 |
| wavelet-HHL_glcm_DifferenceVariance | 142.67 ± 115.07 | 175.65 ± 124.28 | 0.16 |
Figure 3(A) The prediction results of confusion matrix when TNBC was labeled as the target. TP, true positive; TN, true negative; FP, false positive; FN, false negative. (B–D) Confusion matrix of the combined model to the training, test, and external validation sets, respectively.
ROC values of three models for distinguishing molecular subtypes of breast cancer.
| Molecular subtypes | Training set (n = 156) | Test set (n = 67) | Validation set (n = 80) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | 95%CI | AUC | 95%CI | AUC | 95%CI | ||
| Clinical model | HR+/Luminal | 0.75 | 0.67-0.79 | 0.77 | 0.68-0.79 | 0.76 | 0.71-0.79 |
| Radiomic model | HR+/Luminal | 0.81 | 0.78-0.87 | 0.81 | 0.75-0.87 | 0.79 | 0.72-0.86 |
| Combined model | HR+/Luminal | 0.84 | 0.80-0.90 | 0.83 | 0.77-0.86 | 0.83 | 0.79-0.86 |
| Macro-averaging | 0.84 | 0.80-0.90 | 0.84 | 0.77-0.86 | 0.83 | 0.77-0.89 | |
Figure 4Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the combined model in distinguishing molecular subtypes of breast cancer. (A) The training set. (B) The test set. (C) The external validation set.
Figure 5Nomogram for classifying HR+/Luminal and HER2-enriched molecular subtypes of breast cancer. (A–C) Calibration curves of the nomogram in the training, test, and external validation sets, respectively. (D) Decision curve analysis of the nomogram.