ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the accuracy of radiomics features obtained by MR images to predict Breast Cancer Histological Outcome. METHODS: A total of 217 patients with malignant lesions were analysed underwent MRI examinations. Considering histological findings as the ground truth, four different types of findings were used in both univariate and multivariate analyses: (1) G1 + G2 vs G3 classification; (2) presence of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2 + vs HER2 -); (3) presence of the hormone receptor (HR + vs HR -); and (4) presence of luminal subtypes of breast cancer. RESULTS: The best accuracy for discriminating HER2 + versus HER2 - breast cancers was obtained considering nine predictors by early phase T1-weighted subtraction images and a decision tree (accuracy of 88% on validation set). The best accuracy for discriminating HR + versus HR - breast cancers was obtained considering nine predictors by T2-weighted subtraction images and a decision tree (accuracy of 90% on validation set). The best accuracy for discriminating G1 + G2 versus G3 breast cancers was obtained considering 16 predictors by early phase T1-weighted subtraction images in a linear regression model with an accuracy of 75%. The best accuracy for discriminating luminal versus non-luminal breast cancers was obtained considering 27 predictors by early phase T1-weighted subtraction images and a decision tree (accuracy of 94% on validation set). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of radiomics analysis and artificial intelligence techniques could be used to support physician decision-making in prediction of Breast Cancer Histological Outcome.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Humans , Female , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/pathology , Artificial Intelligence , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Interval metastasis is a particular metastatic category of metastatic localizations in the lymph nodes in patients with melanoma. Interval nodes are generally located at nonregional lymphatic stations placed along the pathway of the spread of melanoma, such as the epitrochlear lymph node station, the popliteal fossa, and the retroareolar station. Imaging techniques for evaluation of patients with interval metastasis from melanoma diseases include ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lymphoscintigraphy (LS), and positron emission tomography (PET). A literature review was conducted through a methodical search on the Pubmed and Embase databases. The evaluation of lymph node metastases represents a critical phase in the staging and follow-up of melanoma patients. Therefore, a thorough knowledge of the imaging methods available and the interactions between the clinician and the radiologist are essential for making the correct choice for individual patients, for a better management, and to improve treatment and survival.
ABSTRACT
To assess Radiomics and Machine Learning Analysis in Liver Colon and Rectal Cancer Metastases (CRLM) Growth Pattern, we evaluated, retrospectively, a training set of 51 patients with 121 liver metastases and an external validation set of 30 patients with a single lesion. All patients were subjected to MRI studies in pre-surgical setting. For each segmented volume of interest (VOI), 851 radiomics features were extracted using PyRadiomics package. Nonparametric test, univariate, linear regression analysis and patter recognition approaches were performed. The best results to discriminate expansive versus infiltrative front of tumor growth with the highest accuracy and AUC at univariate analysis were obtained by the wavelet_LHH_glrlm_ShortRunLowGray Level Emphasis from portal phase of contrast study. With regard to linear regression model, this increased the performance obtained respect to the univariate analysis for each sequence except that for EOB-phase sequence. The best results were obtained by a linear regression model of 15 significant features extracted by the T2-W SPACE sequence. Furthermore, using pattern recognition approaches, the diagnostic performance to discriminate the expansive versus infiltrative front of tumor growth increased again and the best classifier was a weighted KNN trained with the 9 significant metrics extracted from the portal phase of contrast study, with an accuracy of 92% on training set and of 91% on validation set. In the present study, we have demonstrated as Radiomics and Machine Learning Analysis, based on EOB-MRI study, allow to identify several biomarkers that permit to recognise the different Growth Patterns in CRLM.
ABSTRACT
Purpose:The purpose of this study was to discriminate between benign and malignant breast lesions through several classifiers using, as predictors, radiomic metrics extracted from CEM and DCE-MRI images. In order to optimize the analysis, balancing and feature selection procedures were performed. Methods: Fifty-four patients with 79 histo-pathologically proven breast lesions (48 malignant lesions and 31 benign lesions) underwent both CEM and DCE-MRI. The lesions were retrospectively analyzed with radiomic and artificial intelligence approaches. Forty-eight textural metrics were extracted, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed: non-parametric statistical test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and machine learning classifiers. Results: Considering the single metrics extracted from CEM, the best predictors were KURTOSIS (area under ROC curve (AUC) = 0.71) and SKEWNESS (AUC = 0.71) calculated on late MLO view. Considering the features calculated from DCE-MRI, the best predictors were RANGE (AUC = 0.72), ENERGY (AUC = 0.72), ENTROPY (AUC = 0.70) and GLN (gray-level nonuniformity) of the gray-level run-length matrix (AUC = 0.72). Considering the analysis with classifiers and an unbalanced dataset, no significant results were obtained. After the balancing and feature selection procedures, higher values of accuracy, specificity and AUC were reached. The best performance was obtained considering 18 robust features among all metrics derived from CEM and DCE-MRI, using a linear discriminant analysis (accuracy of 0.84 and AUC = 0.88). Conclusions: Classifiers, adjusted with adaptive synthetic sampling and feature selection, allowed for increased diagnostic performance of CEM and DCE-MRI in the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Benchmarking , Contrast Media , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Mammography , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To combine blood oxygenation level dependent magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD-MRI), dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), and diffusion weighted MRI (DW-MRI) in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. METHODS: Thirty-seven breast lesions (11 benign and 21 malignant lesions) pathologically proven were included in this retrospective preliminary study. Pharmaco-kinetic parameters including Ktrans, kep, ve, and vp were extracted by DCE-MRI; BOLD parameters were estimated by basal signal S0 and the relaxation rate R2*; and diffusion and perfusion parameters were derived by DW-MRI (pseudo-diffusion coefficient (Dp), perfusion fraction (fp), and tissue diffusivity (Dt)). The correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U-test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were calculated and area under the ROC curve (AUC) was obtained. Moreover, pattern recognition approaches (linear discrimination analysis and decision tree) with balancing technique and leave one out cross validation approach were considered. RESULTS: R2* and D had a significant negative correlation (-0.57). The mean value, standard deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis values of R2* did not show a statistical significance between benign and malignant lesions (p > 0.05) confirmed by the 'poor' diagnostic value of ROC analysis. For DW-MRI derived parameters, the univariate analysis, standard deviation of D, Skewness and Kurtosis values of D* had a significant result to discriminate benign and malignant lesions and the best result at the univariate analysis in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions was obtained by the Skewness of D* with an AUC of 82.9% (p-value = 0.02). Significant results for the mean value of Ktrans, mean value, standard deviation value and Skewness of kep, mean value, Skewness and Kurtosis of ve were obtained and the best AUC among DCE-MRI extracted parameters was reached by the mean value of kep and was equal to 80.0%. The best diagnostic performance in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions was obtained at the multivariate analysis considering the DCE-MRI parameters alone with an AUC = 0.91 when the balancing technique was considered. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the combined use of DCE-MRI, DW-MRI and/or BOLD-MRI does not provide a dramatic improvement compared to the use of DCE-MRI features alone, in the classification of breast lesions. However, an interesting result was the negative correlation between R2* and D.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To quantitatively assess the dose of Dual energy contrast enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and to investigate the relationship between average absorbed glandular dose (AGD), compressed breast thickness (CBT) and compression force (CF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All CEDM and DBT examinations were performed in cranio-caudal (CC) and medio-lateral oblique (MLO) view. Exposure parameters of 135 mammographic procedures that using AEC (automatic exposure control) mode were recorded. AGDs were calculated. Kruskal Wallis test was performed. RESULTS: CBT population ranged from 23 to 94 mm with a thickness median value of 52 mm in CC view and of 57 mm in MLO views. CEDM AGD median value was significatively lower than DBT AGD in each views (p << 0.01). AGD showed a positive correlation and linear regression with CBT for both CEDM and DBT while CF did not show a correlation and linear regression with AGD. The highest values were found for MLO view: R2 of 0.74 for CEDM and R2 of 0.61 for DBT. Kruskal Wallis test shows that there was a difference statistically significant between AGD values of CEDM and DBT in CC view respect to MLO views (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Dose values of both techniques meet the recommendations for maximum dose in mammography. The results of the present study indicated that there was significant difference between AGD for CEDM and DBT exposure in different views (AGD in CC views had the lowest value) and that CBT could influence the AGD while CF was not correlated to AGD.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Breast/anatomy & histology , Contrast Media , Mammography/methods , Radiation Dosage , Radiographic Image Enhancement/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Algorithms , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Female , Humans , Male , Middle AgedABSTRACT
To compare diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced dual-energy digital mammography (CEDM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) alone and in combination compared to 2D digital mammography (MX) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in women with breast lesions. We enrolled 100 consecutive patients with breast lesions (BIRADS 3-5 at imaging or clinically suspicious). CEDM, DBT, and DCE-MRI 2D were acquired. Synthetized MX was obtained by DBT. A total of 134 lesions were investigated on 111 breasts of 100 enrolled patients: 53 were histopathologically proven as benign and 81 as malignant. Nonparametric statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were performed. Two-dimensional synthetized MX showed an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0.764 (sensitivity 65%, specificity 80%), while AUC was of 0.845 (sensitivity 80%, specificity 82%) for DBT, of 0.879 (sensitivity 82%, specificity 80%) for CEDM, and of 0.892 (sensitivity 91%, specificity 84%) for CE-MRI. DCE-MRI determined an AUC of 0.934 (sensitivity 96%, specificity 88%). Combined CEDM with DBT findings, we obtained an AUC of 0.890 (sensitivity 89%, specificity 74%). A difference statistically significant was observed only between DCE-MRI and CEDM (P = .03). DBT, CEDM, CEDM combined to tomosynthesis, and DCE-MRI had a high ability to identify multifocal and bilateral lesions with a detection rate of 77%, 85%, 91%, and 95% respectively, while 2D synthetized MX had a detection rate for multifocal lesions of 56%. DBT and CEDM have superior diagnostic accuracy of 2D synthetized MX to identify and classify breast lesions, and CEDM combined with DBT has better diagnostic performance compared with DBT alone. The best results in terms of diagnostic performance were obtained by DCE-MRI. Dynamic information obtained by time-intensity curve including entire phase of contrast agent uptake allows a better detection and classification of breast lesions.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast Neoplasms/diagnostic imaging , Contrast Media , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Mammography , Radiographic Image Enhancement , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To report our pilot experience in the evaluation of traumatic and nontraumatic emergencies with contrast-specific, continuous-mode sonography (US) and a second-generation contrast medium. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2002 and December 2003 we evaluated 126 acute patients by using real-time contrast-specific US: blunt abdominal trauma (76 cases), penetrating abdominal trauma (3), blunt scrotal trauma (1), right upper abdominal pain (10), left upper abdominal pain (9), epigastric pain (2), flank pain (5), right lower abdominal pain (2), scrotal pain (7), postoperative abdominal sepsis (1), post-biopsy haemorrhage (1), ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (8), postsurgical aortic bleeding (1). In all cases the radiologist performed a complete baseline US survey and then decided whether or not to add a contrast-enhanced examination. RESULTS: All contrast-enhanced sonographic studies were completed proving to be adequate for diagnostic purposes and without adverse reactions to contrast medium. There were 40 true negatives. The final diagnosis, obtained in 85 positive cases out of 86, was: splenic injury (28 cases), hepatic injury (3), renal injury (3), multiple injuries (3), pancreatic and portal vein injury (1), colonic-mesocolic injury (1), testicular trauma (1), hepatic abscess (9), hepatic ischaemia (1), gangrenous cholecystitis (1), splenic infarction (8), splenic haematoma abscess (1), renal infection (4), renal infarction (1), necrotizing pancreatitis (1), post-biopsy haemorrhage (1), appendicitis (2), peritoneal abscesses (1), testicular torsion (6), orchiepididymitis (1), iliac artery dissection (1), ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (6), aortic periprosthetic hemorrhage (1). Out of 85 positive cases, agreement between baseline US and contrast-specific US was absent in 8% of cases, low in 26%, intermediate in 42%, and high in 24%. Baseline US had 3 false positives. Relevance of contrast-specific US was absent in 17% of cases, low (additional data not relevant for patient management) in 26%, intermediate (relevant additional data not modifying patient management) in 34%, and high (additional data modifying patient management) in 23%. Agreement between contrast-specific US and the gold standards was absent in 0% of cases, low in 6%, intermediate in 38%, and high in 56%. Contrast-specific US had 2 false positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Real-time contrast-specific US is an effective technique in emergency imaging. Its role should not be considered as a replacement of CT (though in some instances it can be considered a valuable alternative) but as a useful integration of conventional US. By always having the opportunity to add contrast-enhanced imaging, in case of interpretation doubts or diagnostic difficulties, the radiologist can assess the emergency patient with improved confidence and skill.