Cargando…

Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of radiomics analysis in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the identification of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHOD: CESM images of 367 pathologically confirmed breast cancer patients (training set: 218, testing set: 149) were retrospectively...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Yongxia, Liu, Fengjie, Zhang, Han, Ma, Heng, Sun, Jian, Zhang, Ran, Song, Lei, Shi, Hao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35004294
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.773196
_version_ 1784627820637454336
author Zhang, Yongxia
Liu, Fengjie
Zhang, Han
Ma, Heng
Sun, Jian
Zhang, Ran
Song, Lei
Shi, Hao
author_facet Zhang, Yongxia
Liu, Fengjie
Zhang, Han
Ma, Heng
Sun, Jian
Zhang, Ran
Song, Lei
Shi, Hao
author_sort Zhang, Yongxia
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of radiomics analysis in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the identification of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHOD: CESM images of 367 pathologically confirmed breast cancer patients (training set: 218, testing set: 149) were retrospectively analyzed. Cranial caudal (CC), mediolateral oblique (MLO), and combined models were built on the basis of the features extracted from subtracted images on CC, MLO, and the combination of CC and MLO, respectively, in the tumour region. The performance of the models was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The areas under ROC curves (AUCs) were compared through the DeLong test. RESULTS: The combined CC and MLO model had the best AUC and sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.85–0.96) and 0.97, respectively. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test yielded a non-significant statistic with p-value of 0.59. The clinical usefulness of the combined CC and MLO model was confirmed if the threshold was between 0.02 and 0.81 in the DCA. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models based on subtracted images in CESM images were valuable for distinguishing TNBC and NTNBC. The model with the combined CC and MLO features had the best performance compared with models that used CC or MLO features alone.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8733550
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87335502022-01-07 Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Zhang, Yongxia Liu, Fengjie Zhang, Han Ma, Heng Sun, Jian Zhang, Ran Song, Lei Shi, Hao Front Oncol Oncology PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of radiomics analysis in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM) for the identification of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHOD: CESM images of 367 pathologically confirmed breast cancer patients (training set: 218, testing set: 149) were retrospectively analyzed. Cranial caudal (CC), mediolateral oblique (MLO), and combined models were built on the basis of the features extracted from subtracted images on CC, MLO, and the combination of CC and MLO, respectively, in the tumour region. The performance of the models was evaluated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The areas under ROC curves (AUCs) were compared through the DeLong test. RESULTS: The combined CC and MLO model had the best AUC and sensitivity of 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.85–0.96) and 0.97, respectively. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test yielded a non-significant statistic with p-value of 0.59. The clinical usefulness of the combined CC and MLO model was confirmed if the threshold was between 0.02 and 0.81 in the DCA. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning models based on subtracted images in CESM images were valuable for distinguishing TNBC and NTNBC. The model with the combined CC and MLO features had the best performance compared with models that used CC or MLO features alone. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8733550/ /pubmed/35004294 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.773196 Text en Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Liu, Zhang, Ma, Sun, Zhang, Song and Shi https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Oncology
Zhang, Yongxia
Liu, Fengjie
Zhang, Han
Ma, Heng
Sun, Jian
Zhang, Ran
Song, Lei
Shi, Hao
Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
title Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
title_full Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
title_fullStr Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
title_short Diagnostic Value of Radiomics Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography for Identifying Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
title_sort diagnostic value of radiomics analysis in contrast-enhanced spectral mammography for identifying triple-negative breast cancer
topic Oncology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8733550/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35004294
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.773196
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangyongxia diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT liufengjie diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT zhanghan diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT maheng diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT sunjian diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT zhangran diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT songlei diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer
AT shihao diagnosticvalueofradiomicsanalysisincontrastenhancedspectralmammographyforidentifyingtriplenegativebreastcancer