| Literature DB >> 36104679 |
Shuai Ge1, Yu Yixing1, Dong Jia2, Yang Ling3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed to explore the value of mammography-based radiomics signature for preoperative prediction of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).Entities:
Keywords: Mammography; Radiomics; Triple-negative breast cancer
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36104679 PMCID: PMC9472401 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-022-00875-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 2.795
Fig. 1A and B The combination of surgical pathology, ultrasound, and MRI images of a patient (female, 48 years old) determines an irregular mass in the upper inner quadrant of the right breast. A A mass shadow over the right breast is seen in the MLO position in radiography. B No obvious lesion is seen in the CC position; Hence, we have chosen the radiomics features from the MLO. C and D The combination of surgical pathology, ultrasound, and MRI images of a patient (female, 65 years old) shows a well-defined mass in the upper outer quadrant of the right breast. C A mass shadow is seen in the MLO position in radiography. D No obvious lesion is seen in the CC position. C No obvious lesion is observed in the photographic MLO position. D A mass shadow is observed in the right lateral breast in the CC position. Hence, we have chosen the radiomics features from the CC
Comparison of clinical indicators of breast cancer patients between the training and the verification groups
| Group | Cases | Age | Size | Lesion location | X-ray manifestation | BI-RADS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right | Left | Lumps | Calcification | Lumps and calcifications | Structural distortion | Asymmetric densification | 4a | 4b | 4c | 5 | ||||
| Training group | 211 | 53.32 ± 14.03 | 32.10 ± 18.23 | 103 | 108 | 71 | 25 | 45 | 31 | 39 | 50 | 48 | 56 | 57 |
| Verification group | 108 | 54.75 ± 15.08 | 28.95 ± 17.01 | 58 | 50 | 27 | 18 | 27 | 25 | 11 | 31 | 23 | 25 | 29 |
| 0.456 | 0.147 | 0.409 | 8.901 | 0.802 | ||||||||||
| Statistics | − 0.746a | − 1.452a | 0.683b | 0.064b | 0.995 | |||||||||
Statistics: a: t value; b: X2
Comparison of clinical indicators between patients with TNBC and NTNBC
| Group | Cases | Age | Size | Lesion location | X-ray manifestation | BI-RADS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Right | Left | Lumps | Calcification | Lumps and calcifications | Structural distortion | Asymmetric densification | 4a | 4b | 4c | 5 | ||||
| TNBC | 65 | 53.83 ± 14.39 | 30.66 ± 17.63 | 31 | 34 | 42 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 14 | 15 | 19 | 17 |
| NTNBC | 254 | 53.80 ± 14.42 | 31.12 ± 17.95 | 130 | 124 | 56 | 38 | 65 | 50 | 45 | 67 | 56 | 62 | 69 |
| 0.989 | 0.867 | 0.616 | < 0.001 | 0.778 | ||||||||||
| Statistics | − 0.014a | − 0.168a | 0.252b | 44.133b | 1.097 | |||||||||
Statistics: a: t value; b: X2
Fig. 2Mammogram and histogram analyses of a patient (female, 48 years old) with TNBC in the lateral quadrant of the left breast. A A mammography image shows an irregular nodule in the lateral quadrant of the left breast, with a length of about 7.9 cm and shallow lobes visible on the edge. B The MaZda image segmentation tool was applied to manually delineate the area of interest in the mammography and extract the radiomics features. C The gray level histogram shows the ROI in the lateral quadrant of the left breast
Fig. 3Mammogram and histogram of a patient (female, 52 years old) with NTNBC in the central area of the right breast. A A mammography image shows an irregular nodule in the central area of the right breast, with a length of about 3.4 cm, with lobes and burrs visible on the edge and small calcifications around it. B The MaZda image segmentation tool was applied to manually delineate the area of interest in the mammography and extract the radiomics features. C The gray level histogram shows the ROI in the central area of the right breast
Three subsets of feature methods of the training group predicting TNBC
| Feature selection method | Parameter |
|---|---|
| Fisher | WavEnHH_s-3, WavEnLH_s-4, WavEnHL_s-4, WavEnHL_s-2, WavEnLH_s-3, GrMean, S(0,1) SumAverg, S(1,1) SumAverg, S(1,-1) SumAverg, S(2,0) SumAverg |
| POE + ACC | WavEnLH_s-4, Kurtosis, Perc.01%, Vertl_LngREmph, WavEnHH_s-5, Teta4, WavEnHL_s-5, 135dr_ShrtREmp, GrKurtosis, WavEnHH_s-1 |
| MI | WavEnLL_s-2, WavEnLL_s-1, 135dr_Fraction, 135dr_LngREmph, WavEnLH_s-4, S(0,2) SumOfSqs, S(1,0) SumOfSqs, S(1,1) SumOfSqs, S(2,0) SumOfSqs, S(2,2) SumOfSqs |
Fisher: Fisher parameter method; POE + ACC: Classification error rate combined average correlation coefficient method; MI: Related Information Measurement; Wavelet transform: WavEnHH_s-3,WavEnLH_s-4,WavEnHL_s-4, WavEnHL_s-2, WavEnLH_s-3, WavEnHH_s-5, WavEnHL_s-5, WavEnHH_s-1, WavEnLL_s-2, WavEnLL_s-1; Gradient model: GrMean, 135dr_ShrtREmp, GrKurtosis, 135dr_Fraction, 135dr_LngREmph; Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix: S(0,1) SumAverg, S(1,1) SumAverg, S(1,-1) SumAverg, S(2,0) SumAverg, S(0,2) SumOfSqs, S(1,0) SumOfSqs, S(1,1) SumOfSqs, S(2,0) SumOfSqs, S(2,2) SumOfSqs; Histogram: Kurtosis, Perc.01%; Run matrix: Vertl_LngREmph; Autoregressive model: Teta4
Fig. 4The box plot shows the Radscore of patients with TNBC and NTNBC in the training set (A) and the validation set (B)
Fig. 5ROC curves illustrate the mammography radiomics signature prediction of the A training and B validation sets of TNBC
The efficacy of mammography radiomics signature in predicting TNBC
| AUC | 95% Confidence interval | Accuracy (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Positive predictive value (%) | Negative predictive value (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training group | 0.821 | 0.752–0.890 | 74.4 | 82.5 | 72.5 | 41.2 | 94.6 |
| Verification group | 0.809 | 0.711–0.907 | 80.6 | 72.0 | 80.7 | 55.5 | 93.1 |
AUC area under the curve