| Literature DB >> 35743737 |
Raffaella Massafra1, Maria Colomba Comes1, Samantha Bove1, Vittorio Didonna1, Gianluca Gatta2, Francesco Giotta3, Annarita Fanizzi1, Daniele La Forgia4, Agnese Latorre2, Maria Irene Pastena5, Domenico Pomarico1, Lucia Rinaldi6, Pasquale Tamborra1, Alfredo Zito5, Vito Lorusso3, Angelo Virgilio Paradiso7.
Abstract
To date, some artificial intelligence (AI) methods have exploited Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI) to identify finer tumor properties as potential earlier indicators of pathological Complete Response (pCR) in breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). However, they work either for sagittal or axial MRI protocols. More flexible AI tools, to be used easily in clinical practice across various institutions in accordance with its own imaging acquisition protocol, are required. Here, we addressed this topic by developing an AI method based on deep learning in giving an early prediction of pCR at various DCE-MRI protocols (axial and sagittal). Sagittal DCE-MRIs refer to 151 patients (42 pCR; 109 non-pCR) from the public I-SPY1 TRIAL database (DB); axial DCE-MRIs are related to 74 patients (22 pCR; 52 non-pCR) from a private DB provided by Istituto Tumori "Giovanni Paolo II" in Bari (Italy). By merging the features extracted from baseline MRIs with some pre-treatment clinical variables, accuracies of 84.4% and 77.3% and AUC values of 80.3% and 78.0% were achieved on the independent tests related to the public DB and the private DB, respectively. Overall, the presented method has shown to be robust regardless of the specific MRI protocol.Entities:
Keywords: deep learning; early prediction; magnetic resonance imaging; pathological complete response
Year: 2022 PMID: 35743737 PMCID: PMC9225219 DOI: 10.3390/jpm12060953
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pers Med ISSN: 2075-4426
Figure 1Examples of baseline MR image acquired according to (a) a sagittal view of a public DB patient and (b) an axial view of a private DB patient.
Figure 2Workflow of the proposed AI framework for early pCR prediction. The approach consists of three main steps: (a) Automatic feature extraction through a pre-trained CNN; (b) Stratified feature selection; (c) Classification on the independent test. The method has been applied on sagittal and axial baseline MRIs separately.
Patient characteristics.
| Public DB | Private DB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pCR | Non-pCR | pCR | Non-pCR | ||
| Overall | 42 (28%) | 109 (72%) | Overall | 22 (30%) | 52 (70%) |
| Age (years) | Age (years) | ||||
| Mean | 46.81 | 49.06 | Mean | 51.55 | 52.02 |
| T (mm) | T (mm) | ||||
| Mean | 75.86 | 65.24 | Mean | 35.78 | 36.05 |
| Grading | Grading | ||||
| G1 | 0 (0%) | 8 (7.4%) | G1 | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (1.9%) |
| G2 | 12 (28.6%) | 60 (55.0%) | G2 | 1 (4.5%) | 16 (30.8%) |
| G3 | 27 (64.3%) | 41 (37.6%) | G3 | 20 (91.0%) | 30 (57.7%) |
| NA | 3 (7.1%) | 0 (0%) | NA | 0 (0%) | 5 (9.6%) |
| ER | ER | ||||
| Negative | 29 (69.0%) | 38 (34.9%) | Negative | 12 (54.5%) | 13 (25.0%) |
| Positive | 13 (31.0%) | 71 (65.1%) | Positive | 10 (45.5%) | 38 (73.1%) |
| NA | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NA | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.9%) |
| PgR | PgR | ||||
| Negative | 34 (81.0%) | 49 (45.0%) | Negative | 17 (77.3%) | 21 (40.4%) |
| Positive | 8 (19.0%) | 60 (55.0%) | Positive | 5 (22.7%) | 30 (57.7%) |
| NA | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | NA | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.9%) |
| Ki67 | Ki67 | ||||
| Negative | 2 (4.8%) | 4 (3.7%) | Negative | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Low | 2 (4.8%) | 28 (25.7%) | Low | 0 (0%) | 2 (3.8%) |
| Intermediate | 7 (16.7%) | 32 (29.4%) | Intermediate | 4 (18.2%) | 15 (28.8%) |
| High | 20 (47.6%) | 34 (31.1%) | High | 18 (81.8%) | 34 (65.5%) |
| NA | 11 (26.1%) | 11 (10.1%) | NA | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.9%) |
| HER2 | HER2 | ||||
| Negative | 24 (57.1%) | 86 (78.9%) | Negative | 10 (45.5%) | 35 (67.3%) |
| Positive | 17 (40.5%) | 22 (20.1%) | Positive | 12 (54.5%) | 16 (30.8%) |
| NA | 1 (2.4%) | 1 (1.0%) | NA | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.9%) |
In the brackets, percentage values are specified. The abbreviation NA indicates missing values.
Statistical analysis on clinical features.
| Variable | Type | DB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | Continuous | public | 0.1673 |
| private | 0.8805 | ||
| T | Continuous | public | 0.2508 |
| private | 0.8097 | ||
| ER | Categorical (binary) | public | 1.2 × 10−4 |
| private | 0.0164 | ||
| PgR | Categorical (binary) | public | 4.9 × 10−5 |
| private | 0.0046 | ||
| HER2 | Categorical (binary) | public | 0.0087 |
| private | 0.0617 | ||
| Grading | Categorical | public | 1.4 × 10−4 |
| private | 0.0286 | ||
| Ki67 | Categorical | public | 0.0116 |
| private | 0.3494 | ||
| private | 0.0995 |
The Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test was performed for continuous features, whereas Spearman rank test was used for categorical features. A result was considered statistically significant when the p-value was less than 0.10.
Summary of the performances achieved by the pCR prediction models in terms of AUC.
| Set | Model | N. Features | AUC | Acc. | Sens. | Spec. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public DB | Clinical | 5 | 58.2% | 64.4% | 53.6% | 68.8% |
| F-merged | 29 | 75.0% | 73.3% |
| 75.0% | |
| F-merged + clinical | 34 |
|
|
|
| |
| Private DB | Clinical | 5 | 56.0% | 59.1% | 42.9% | 66.7% |
| F-merged | 28 | 72.4% |
| 57.1% |
| |
| F-merged + clinical | 33 |
|
|
| 80.0% |
Accuracy (Acc.), Sensitivity (Sens.), and Specificity (Spec.) on the independent tests of the public DB and private DB. The number of features comprising each model is also reported. The best results achieved for each of the evaluation metrics are indicated in bold.