Prediction of malignancy by a radiomic signature from contrast agent-free diffusion MRI in suspicious breast lesions found on screening mammography.

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 604-616

  Bickelhaupt, Sebastian ^a   Paech, Daniel ^a   Kickingereder, Philipp ^a,b   Steudle, Franziska ^a   Lederer, Wolfgang ^c   Daniel, Heidi ^d   Götz, Michael ^a   Gählert, Nils ^a   Tichy, Diana ^a   Wiesenfarth, Manuel ^a   Laun, Frederik B ^a   Maier Hein, Klaus H ^a   Schlemmer, Heinz Peter ^a   Bonekamp, David ^a  

^a GERMAN CANCER RESEARCH CENTER DKFZ   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^c ATOS KLINIK HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^d Radiology Center Mannheim (RZM)   (Germany)

Author keywords

apparent diffusion coefficient; diffusion weighted imaging with background suppression; DWIBS; magnetic resonance; mammography; radiomics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; BENIGN BREAST TUMOR; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SIZE; CLASSIFIER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING WITH BACKGROUND SUPPRESSION; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PILOT STUDY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; T2 WEIGHTED IMAGING; VALIDATION PROCESS; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST TUMOR; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; RADIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; X RAY;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PILOT PROJECTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOLOGY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; X-RAYS;

EID: 85011665595     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25606     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alcusky M, Philpotts L, Bonafede M, Clarke J, Skoufalos A. The patient burden of screening mammography recall. J Womens Health 2014;23(S1):S11–S19.
2. Payne JI, Martin T, Caines JS, Duggan R. The burden of false-positive results in analog and digital screening mammography: experience of the Nova Scotia Breast Screening Program. Can Assoc Radiol J 2014;65:315–320.
3. Berlin CMgKM. Evaluation-Report 2010. Results of the Mammography-Screening-Program in Germany. Cooperation Society Mammography, Berlin, February 2014. (in German). http://newsroom.mammo-programm.de/download/fachpublikation/Mammo_Evalulationsbericht_2010.pdf
4. Hofvind S, Ponti A, Patnick J, et al. False-positive results in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review and survey of service screening programmes. J Med Screen 2012;19(Suppl 1):57–66.
5. Golatta M, Schweitzer-Martin M, Harcos A, et al. Evaluation of virtual touch tissue imaging quantification, a new shear wave velocity imaging method, for breast lesion assessment by ultrasound. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:960262.
6. Rjosk-Dendorfer D, Reichelt A, Clevert DA. [Elastography as an additional tool in breast sonography. Technical principles and clinical applications]. Der Radiologe 2014;54:211–216.
7. Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Sunami S, et al. Detection of non-palpable breast cancer in asymptomatic women by using unenhanced diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted MR imaging: comparison with mammography and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Eur Radiol 2011;21:11–17.
8. Baltzer PA, Benndorf M, Dietzel M, Gajda M, Camara O, Kaiser WA. Sensitivity and specificity of unenhanced MR mammography (DWI combined with T2-weighted TSE imaging, ueMRM) for the differentiation of mass lesions. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1101–1110.
9. Partridge SC, Demartini WB, Kurland BF, Eby PR, White SW, Lehman CD. Differential diagnosis of mammographically and clinically occult breast lesions on diffusion-weighted MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010;31:562–570.
10. Telegrafo M, Rella L, Stabile Ianora AA, Angelelli G, Moschetta M. Unenhanced breast MRI (STIR, T2-weighted TSE, DWIBS): An accurate and alternative strategy for detecting and differentiating breast lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 2015;33:951–955.
11. Bickelhaupt S, Laun FB, Tesdorff J, et al. Fast and Noninvasive Characterization of Suspicious Lesions Detected at Breast Cancer X-Ray Screening: Capability of Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging with MIPs. Radiology 2016;278:689–697.
12. Bickelhaupt S, Tesdorff J, Laun FB, et al. Independent value of image fusion in unenhanced breast MRI using diffusion-weighted and morphological T2-weighted images for lesion characterization in patients with recently detected BI-RADS 4/5 x-ray mammography findings. Eur Radiol 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
13. Partridge SC, Nissan N, Rahbar H, Kitsch AE, Sigmund EE. Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: Clinical applications and emerging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
14. Yip SS, Aerts HJ. Applications and limitations of radiomics. Phys Med Biol 2016;61:R150–166.
15. Aerts HJ, Velazquez ER, Leijenaar RT, et al. Decoding tumour phenotype by noninvasive imaging using a quantitative radiomics approach. Nat Commun 2014;5:4006.
16. Parmar C, Grossmann P, Bussink J, Lambin P, Aerts HJ. Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers. Sci Rep 2015;5:13087.
17. Aghaei F, Tan M, Hollingsworth AB, Zheng B. Applying a new quantitative global breast MRI feature analysis scheme to assess tumor response to chemotherapy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016 [Epub ahead of print].
18. Waugh SA, Purdie CA, Jordan LB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging texture analysis classification of primary breast cancer. Eur Radiol 2016;26:322–330.
19. Wan T, Bloch BN, Plecha D, et al. A radio-genomics approach for identifying high risk estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers on DCE-MRI: preliminary results in predicting oncotypedx risk scores. Sci Rep 2016;6:21394.
20. Yamamoto S, Han W, Kim Y, et al. Breast cancer: radiogenomic biomarker reveals associations among dynamic contrast-enhanced mr imaging, long noncoding RNA, and metastasis. Radiology 2015;275:384–392.
21. Mazurowski MA, Zhang J, Grimm LJ, Yoon SC, Silber JI. Radiogenomic analysis of breast cancer: luminal B molecular subtype is associated with enhancement dynamics at MR imaging. Radiology 2014;273:365–372.
22. Zhu Y, Li H, Guo W, et al. Deciphering genomic underpinnings of quantitative MRI-based radiomic phenotypes of invasive breast carcinoma. Sci Rep 2015;5:17787.
23. Li H, Zhu Y, Burnside ES, et al. MR imaging radiomics signatures for predicting the risk of breast cancer recurrence as given by research versions of MammaPrint, Oncotype DX, and PAM50 gene assays. Radiology 2016:152110.
24. Fritzsche KH, Neher PF, Reicht I, et al. MITK diffusion imaging. Methods Inform Med 2012;51:441–448.
25. Jenkinson M, Beckmann CF, Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Smith SM. Fsl. NeuroImage 2012;62:782–790.
26. Nolden M, Zelzer S, Seitel A, et al. The medical imaging interaction toolkit: challenges and advances: 10 years of open-source development. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 2013;8:607–620.
27. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. NeuroImage 2006;31:1116–1128.
28. Zhao P, Yu B. On model selection consistency of Lasso. J Machine Learn Res 2006;7:2541–2563.
29. Efron B, Tibshirani R. Improvements on cross-validation: the 632 + bootstrap method. J Am Stat Assoc 1997;92:548–560.
30. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014.
31. Binder H, Schumacher M. Adapting prediction error estimates for biased complexity selection in high-dimensional bootstrap samples. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 2008;7.
32. Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis? Radiology 2009;253:341–351.
33. Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, et al. Breast-cancer screening — viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2353–2358.
34. Bock K, Heywang-Kobrunner S, Regitz-Jedermann L, Hecht G, Kaab-Sanyal V. [Mammography screening in Germany. Current results and future challenges]. Der Radiologe 2014;54:205–210.
35. Fusco R, Sansone M, Filice S, et al. Integration of DCE-MRI and DW-MRI quantitative parameters for breast lesion classification. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015:237863.
36. Radbruch A, Weberling LD, Kieslich PJ, et al. High-signal intensity in the dentate nucleus and globus pallidus on unenhanced T1-weighted images: evaluation of the macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agent gadobutrol. Invest Radiol 2015;50:805–810.
37. McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Kallmes DF, et al. Intracranial Gadolinium Deposition after Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging. Radiology 2015;275:772–782.
38. Hu L, Cheng Z, Wang M, Song Z. Image manifold revealing for breast lesion segmentation in DCE-MRI. Biomed Mater Eng 2015;26(Suppl 1):S1353–1360.
39. Kickingereder P, Burth S, Wick A, et al. Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiology 2016;280:880–889.