Quantitative MRI radiomics in the prediction of molecular classifications of breast cancer subtypes in the TCGA/TCIA data set

npj Breast Cancer

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Li, Hui ^a   Zhu, Yitan ^b   Burnside, Elizabeth S ^c   Huang, Erich ^d   Drukker, Karen ^a   Hoadley, Katherine A ^e   Fan, Cheng ^e   Conzen, Suzanne D ^a   Zuley, Margarita ^f   Net, Jose M ^g   Sutton, Elizabeth ^h   Whitman, Gary J ⁱ   Morris, Elizabeth ^h   Perou, Charles M ^e   Ji, Yuan ^a,b   Giger, Maryellen L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY HEALTHSYSTEM   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^h MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85054102101     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23744677     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.12     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Siegel, R., Ma, J., Zou, Z. & Jemal, A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J. Clin. 64, 9–29 (2014).
2. Carey, L. A. et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast cancer study. JAMA 295, 2492–2502 (2006).
3. Voduc, K. D. et al. Breast cancer subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J. Clin. Oncol. 28, 1684–1691 (2010).
4. Metzger-Filho, O. et al. Patterns of recurrence and outcome according to breast cancer subtypes in lymph node-negative disease: results from international breast cancer study group trials VIII and IX. J. Clin. Oncol. 31, 3083–3090 (2013).
5. Arvold, N. D. et al. Age, breast cancer subtype approximation, and local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 29, 3885–3891 (2011).
6. Potemski, P. et al. Prognostic relevance of basal cytokeratin expression in operable breast cancer. Oncology 69, 478–485 (2005).
7. Millar, E. K. et al. Prediction of local recurrence, distant metastases, and death after breast-conserving therapy in early-stage invasive breast cancer using a five-biomarker panel. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 4701–4708 (2009).
8. Bagaria, S. P. et al. Personalizing breast cancer staging by the inclusion of ER, PR, and HER2. JAMA Surgery 149, 125–129 (2014).
9. Ko, E. S. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in estrogen receptor-positive invasive ductal breast carcinoma: correlations with tumor-stroma ratio. Radiology 271, 30–37 (2014).
10. Huber, K. E., Carey, L. A. & Wazer, D. E. Breast cancer molecular subtypes in patients with locally advanced disease: impact on prognosis, patterns of recurrence, and response to therapy. Semin. Radiat. Oncol. 19, 204–210 (2009).
11. Wachmann, L. et al. Presenting features of breast cancer differ by molecular subtype. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 16, 2705–2710 (2009).
12. Nguyen, P. L. et al. Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, pregesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2373–2378 (2008).
13. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490, 61–70 (2012).
14. Clark, K. et al. The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J. Digit. Imaging 26, 1045–1057 (2013).
15. Giger, M. L. Update on the potential of computer-aided diagnosis for breast cancer. Future Oncol. 6, 1–4 (2010).
16. Giger, M. L., Chan, H.-P. & Boone, J. Anniversary Paper: history and status of CAD and quantitative image analysis: the role of Medical Physics and AAPM. Med. Phys. 35, 5799–5820 (2008).
17. Colen, R. et al. NCI workshop report: clinical and computational requirements for correlating imaging Phenotypes with Genomics Signatures. Transl. Oncol. 7, 556–569 (2014).
18. Giger, M. L., Karssemeijer, N. & Schnabel, J. Breast image analysis for risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer. Ann. Rev. Biomed. Engineer. 15, 327–357 (2013).
19. Bhooshan, N. et al. Cancerous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers. Radiology 254, 680–690 (2010).
20. Bhooshan, N. et al. Computerized three-class classification of MRI-based prognostic markers for breast cancer. Phys. Med. Biol. 45, 5995–6008 (2011).
21. Yang, Q., Li, L., Zhang, J., Shao, G. & Zheng, B. A computerized global MR image feature analysis scheme to assist diagnosis of breast cancer: a preliminary assessment. Eur. J. Radiol. 83, 1086–1091 (2014).
22. Agner, S. C. et al. Computerized image analysis for identifying triple-negative breast cancers and differentiating them from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: a feasibility study. Radiology 272, 91–99 (2014).
23. Youk, J. H., Son, E. J., Chung, J., Kim, J. A. & Kim, E. K. Triple-negative invasive breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with other breast cancer subtypes. Eur. Radiol. 22, 1724–1734 (2012).
24. Mazurowski, M. A., Zhang, J., Grimm, L. J., Yoon, S. C. & Silber, J. I. Radiogenomic analysis of breast cancer: luminal B molecular subtype is associated with enhancement dynamics at MR imaging. Radiology 273, 365–372 (2014).
25. Grimm, L. J., Zhang, J. & Mazurowski, M. A. Computational approach to radio-genomics of breast cancer: luminal A and luminal B molecular subtypes are associated with imaging features on routine breast MRI extracted using computer vision algorithms. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 42, 902–907 (2015).
26. Yamamoto, S., Maki, D. D., Korn, R. L. & Kuo, M. D. Radiogenomic analysis of breast cancer using MRI: a preliminary study to define the landscape. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 199, 654–663 (2012).
27. Yamamoto, S. et al. Breast Cancer: radiogenomic biomarker reveals associations among dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, long noncoding RNA, and metastasis. Radiology 275, 384–392 (2015).
28. Ashraf, A. B. et al. Identification of intrinsic imaging phenotypes for breast cancer tumors: preliminary associations with gene expression profiles. Radiology 272, 374–384 (2014).
29. Yamaguchi, K. et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of the distribution of kinetic parameters in breast cancer: comparison based on the molecular subtypes of invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer 22, 496–502 (2015).
30. Blaschke, E. & Abe, H. MRI phenotype of breast cancer: Kinetic assessment for molecular subtypes. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 42, 920–924 (2015).
31. Chen, J. H. et al. Estrogen receptor and breast MR imaging features: a correlation study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 27, 825–833 (2008).
32. Koukourakis, M. I. et al. Angiogenesis relates to estrogen receptor negativity, c-erbB-2 overexpression and early relapse in node-negative ductal carcinoma of the breast. Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 11, 29–34 (2003).
33. Fuckar, D. et al. VEGF expression is associated with negative estrogen receptor status in patients with breast cancer. Int. J. Surg. Pathol. 14, 49–55 (2006).
34. Arpino, G. et al. Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer: association with growth factor receptor expression and tamoxifen resistance. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 97, 1254–1261 (2005).
35. Badve, S. et al. Basal-like and triple-negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for pathologists and oncologists. Mod. Pathol. 24, 157–167 (2011).
36. Chen, W., Giger, M. L., Li, H., Bick, U. & Newstead, G. Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. Magn. Reson Med. 58, 562–571 (2007).
37. Waugh, S. A. et al. Magnetic resonance imaging texture analysis classification of primary breast cancer. Eur. Radiol. 26, 322–330 (2016).
38. Zhu, Y., Qiu, P. & Ji, Y. TCGA-assembler: open-source software for retrieving and processing TCGA data. Nat. Methods 11, 599–600 (2014).
39. Perou, C. M. et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406, 747–752 (2000).
40. Parker, J. S. et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 1160–1167 (2009).
41. Mongkolwat, P., Kleper, V., Talbot, S. & Rubin, D. The National Cancer Informatics Program (NCIP) Annotation and Image Markup (AIM) Foundation Model. J. Digit. Imaging 27, 692–701 (2014).
42. Mongkolwat, P., Channin, D. S., Kleper, V. & Rubin, D. L. Informatics in radiology. An open-source and open-access cancer biomedical informatics grid annotation and image markup template builder. Radiographics 32, 1223–1232 (2012).
43. Chen, W., Giger, M. L. & Bick, U. A fuzzy c-means (FCM)-based approach for computerized segmentation of breast lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images. Acad. Radiol. 13, 63–72 (2006).
44. Gilhuijs, K. G. A., Giger, M. L. & Bick, U. Automated analysis of breast lesions in three dimensions using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Med. Phys. 25, 1647–1654 (1998).
45. Haralick, R. M., Shanmugam, K. & Dinstein, I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. 6, 610–621 (1973).
46. Chen, W., Giger, M. L., Bick, U. & Newstead, G. Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI. Med. Phys. 33, 2878–2887 (2006).
47. Chen, W., Giger, M. L., Lan, L. & Bick, U. Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med. Phys. 31, 1076–1082 (2004).
48. Chen, W. et al. Computerized assessment of breast lesion malignancy using DCE-MRI: robustness study on two independent clinical datasets from two manufacturers. Acad. Radiol. 17, 822–829 (2010).
49. Arasu, V. A. et al. Can signal enhancement ratio (SER) reduce the number of recommended biopsies without affecting cancer yield in occult MRI-detected lesions? Acad. Radiol. 18, 716–721 (2011).
50. Edge S. et al. (eds) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 7th edn, (Springer-Verlag, 2010).
51. Metz, C. E. & Pan, X. ‘Proper’ binormal ROC curves: theory and maximum-likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 43, 1–33 (1999).
52. Pan, X. & Metz, C. E. The ‘proper’ binormal model: parametric receiver operating characteristic curve estimation with degenerate data. Acad. Radiol. 4, 380–389 (1997).
53. Pesce, L. L. & Metz, C. E. Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of ‘proper’ binormal ROC curves. Acad. Radiol. 14, 814–829 (2007).
54. Feinstein, A. R. Clinical biostatistics. XXV. A survey of the statistical procedures in general medical journals. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 15, 97–107 (1974).
55. Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods. (Griffin, London, UK, 1955).
56. Trop, I. et al. Molecular classification of infiltrating breast cancer: toward personalized therapy. Radiographics 34, 1178–1195 (2014).
57. Pusztai, L. et al. Molecular classification of breast cancer: limitations and potential. Oncologist 11, 868–877 (2006).
58. Sotiriou, C. et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 10393–10398 (2003).
59. Holm, S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand. J. Statist. 6, 65–70 (1979).