3.9 Article

Textural radiomic features and time-intensity curve data analysis by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for early prediction of breast cancer therapy response: preliminary data

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s41747-019-0141-2

Keywords

Breast neoplasms; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoadjuvant therapy; Radiomics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background To investigate the potential of semiquantitative time-intensity curve parameters compared to textural radiomic features on arterial phase images by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for early prediction of breast cancer neoadjuvant therapy response. Methods A retrospective study of 45 patients subjected to DCE-MRI by public datasets containing examination performed prior to the start of treatment and after the treatment first cycle ('QIN Breast DCE-MRI' and 'QIN-Breast') was performed. In total, 11 semiquantitative parameters and 50 texture features were extracted. Non-parametric test, receiver operating characteristic analysis with area under the curve (ROC-AUC), Spearman correlation coefficient, and Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction were applied. Results Fifteen patients with pathological complete response (pCR) and 30 patients with non-pCR were analysed. Significant differences in median values between pCR patients and non-pCR patients were found for entropy, long-run emphasis, and busyness among the textural features, for maximum signal difference, washout slope, washin slope, and standardised index of shape among the dynamic semiquantitative parameters. The standardised index of shape had the best results with a ROC-AUC of 0.93 to differentiate pCR versus non-pCR patients. Conclusions The standardised index of shape could become a clinical tool to differentiate, in the early stages of treatment, responding to non-responding patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available