4.7 Article

Magnetic resonance imaging texture analysis classification of primary breast cancer

Journal

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 322-330

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-015-3845-6

Keywords

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI); Texture analysis (TA); Breast cancer; Classification; Histological subtypes and immunohistochemical profiles

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesPatient-tailored treatments for breast cancer are based on histological and immunohistochemical (IHC) subtypes. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) texture analysis (TA) may be useful in non-invasive lesion subtype classification. MethodsWomen with newly diagnosed primary breast cancer underwent pre-treatment dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI. TA was performed using co-occurrence matrix (COM) features, by creating a model on retrospective training data, then prospectively applying to a test set. Analyses were blinded to breast pathology. Subtype classifications were performed using a cross-validated k-nearest-neighbour (k = 3) technique, with accuracy relative to pathology assessed and receiver operator curve (AUROC) calculated. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to assess raw entropy feature values. ResultsHistological subtype classifications were similar across training (n = 148 cancers) and test sets (n = 73 lesions) using all COM features (training: 75 %, AUROC = 0.816; test: 72.5 %, AUROC = 0.823). Entropy features were significantly different between lobular and ductal cancers (p < 0.001; Mann-Whitney U). IHC classifications using COM features were also similar for training and test data (training: 57.2 %, AUROC = 0.754; test: 57.0 %, AUROC = 0.750). Hormone receptor positive and negative cancers demonstrated significantly different entropy features. Entropy features alone were unable to create a robust classification model. ConclusionTextural differences on contrast-enhanced MR images may reflect underlying lesion subtypes, which merits testing against treatment response.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available