Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019181113

Combining radiomic analysis of breast tumors with that of parenchyma may improve diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer.

Background

Previous studies have suggested that breast parenchymal texture features may reflect the biologic risk factors associated with breast cancer development. Therefore, combining the characteristics of normal parenchyma from the contralateral breast with radiomic features of breast tumors may improve the accuracy of digital mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer.

Purpose

To determine whether the addition of radiomic analysis of contralateral breast parenchyma to the characterization of breast lesions with digital mammography improves lesion classification over that with radiomic tumor features alone.

Materials and Methods

This HIPAA-compliant, retrospective study included 182 patients (age range, 25–90 years; mean age, 55.9 years ± 14.9) who underwent mammography between June 2002 and July 2009. There were 106 malignant and 76 benign lesions. Automatic lesion segmentation and radiomic analysis were performed for each breast lesion. Radiomic texture analysis was applied in the normal regions of interest in the contralateral breast parenchyma to assess the mammographic parenchymal patterns. The classification performance of both individual features and the output from a Bayesian artificial neural network classifier was evaluated with the leave-one-patient-out method by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) as the figure of merit in the task of differentiating between malignant and benign lesions.

Results

The performance of the combined lesion and parenchyma classifier in the differentiation between malignant and benign mammographic lesions was better than that with the lesion features alone (AUC = 0.84 ± 0.03 vs 0.79 ± 0.03, respectively; P = .047). Overall, six radiomic features—spiculation, margin sharpness, size, circularity from the tumor feature set, and skewness and power law beta from the parenchymal feature set—were selected more than 50% of the time during the feature selection process on the combined feature set.

Conclusion

Combining quantitative radiomic data from tumors with contralateral parenchyma characterizations may improve diagnostic accuracy for breast cancer.

© RSNA, 2019

Online supplemental material is available for this article.

See also the editorial by Shaffer in this issue.

References

  • 1. Huo Z, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, et al. Analysis of spiculation in the computerized classification of mammographic masses. Med Phys 1995;22(10):1569–1579. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2. Li H, Giger ML, Yuan Y, et al. Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset. Acad Radiol 2008;15(11):1437–1445. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3. Varela C, Timp S, Karssemeijer N. Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses. Phys Med Biol 2006;51(2):425–441. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4. Lo JY, Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr. Computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer: artificial neural network approach for optimized merging of mammographic features. Acad Radiol 1995;2(10):841–850. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5. Floyd CE Jr, Lo JY, Yun AJ, Sullivan DC, Kornguth PJ. Prediction of breast cancer malignancy using an artificial neural network. Cancer 1994;74(11):2944–2948. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6. Sahiner B, Chan H-P, Petrick N, Helvie MA, Goodsitt MM. Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. Med Phys 1998;25(4):516–526. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7. Chan HP, Sahiner B, Helvie MA, et al. Improvement of radiologists’ characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. Radiology 1999;212(3):817–827. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8. Wolfe JN. Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1976;126(6):1130–1137. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9. Brisson J, Diorio C, Mâsse B. Wolfe’s parenchymal pattern and percentage of the breast with mammographic densities: redundant or complementary classifications? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12(8):728–732. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10. Boyd NF, Martin LJ, Stone J, Greenberg C, Minkin S, Yaffe MJ. Mammographic densities as a marker of human breast cancer risk and their use in chemoprevention. Curr Oncol Rep 2001;3(4):314–321. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11. Manduca A, Carston MJ, Heine JJ, et al. Texture features from mammographic images and risk of breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(3):837–845. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12. Wei J, Chan HP, Wu YT, et al. Association of computerized mammographic parenchymal pattern measure with breast cancer risk: a pilot case-control study. Radiology 2011;260(1):42–49. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13. Gastounioti A, Conant EF, Kontos D. Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res 2016;18(1):91. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14. Huo Z, Giger ML, Wolverton DE, Zhong W, Cumming S, Olopade OI. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment: feature selection. Med Phys 2000;27(1):4–12. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15. Li H, Giger ML, Lan L, et al. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns on a large clinical dataset of full-field digital mammograms: robustness study with two high-risk datasets. J Digit Imaging 2012;25(5):591–598. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16. Sala E, Solomon L, Warren R, et al. Size, node status and grade of breast tumours: association with mammographic parenchymal patterns. Eur Radiol 2000;10(1):157–161. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17. Korkaya H, Liu S, Wicha MS. Breast cancer stem cells, cytokine networks, and the tumor microenvironment. J Clin Invest 2011;121(10):3804–3809. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18. Weigelt B, Bissell MJ. Unraveling the microenvironmental influences on the normal mammary gland and breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 2008;18(5):311–321. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19. Byng JW, Boyd NF, Little L, et al. Symmetry of projection in the quantitative analysis of mammographic images. Eur J Cancer Prev 1996;5(5):319–327. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20. Yuan Y, Giger ML, Li H, Suzuki K, Sennett C. A dual-stage method for lesion segmentation on digital mammograms. Med Phys 2007;34(11):4180–4193. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21. Huo Z, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Wolverton DE, Schmidt RA, Doi K. Automated computerized classification of malignant and benign masses on digitized mammograms. Acad Radiol 1998;5(3):155–168. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22. Chen W, Giger ML, Li H, Bick U, Newstead GM. Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. Magn Reson Med 2007;58(3):562–571. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23. Bishop CM. Neural networks for pattern recognition. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press, 1995. Google Scholar
  • 24. Li H, Giger ML, Huo Z, et al. Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for assessing breast cancer risk: effect of ROI size and location. Med Phys 2004;31(3):549–555. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25. Li H, Giger ML, Lan L, Janardanan J, Sennett CA. Comparative analysis of image-based phenotypes of mammographic density and parenchymal patterns in distinguishing between BRCA1/2 cases, unilateral cancer cases, and controls. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 2014;1(3):031009. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26. Gierach GL, Li H, Loud JT, et al. Relationships between computer-extracted mammographic texture pattern features and BRCA1/2 mutation status: a cross-sectional study. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16(4):424. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27. Golugula A, Lee G, Madabhushi A. Evaluating feature selection strategies for high dimensional, small sample size datasets. In: 2011 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. IEEE, 2011; 949–952. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28. Pesce LL, Metz CE. Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of “proper” binormal ROC curves. Acad Radiol 2007;14(7):814–829. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29. Holm S. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scand J Stat 1979;6(2):65–70. Google Scholar
  • 30. McCormack VA, dos Santos Silva I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(6):1159–1169. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31. Saftlas AF, Szklo M. Mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk. Epidemiol Rev 1987;9(1):146–174. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32. Shekhar MP, Pauley R, Heppner G. Host microenvironment in breast cancer development: extracellular matrix-stromal cell contribution to neoplastic phenotype of epithelial cells in the breast. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5(3):130–135. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33. Wiseman BS, Werb Z. Stromal effects on mammary gland development and breast cancer. Science 2002;296(5570):1046–1049. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34. Fidler IJ, Poste G. The “seed and soil” hypothesis revisited. Lancet Oncol 2008;9(8):808. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 35. Mao Y, Keller ET, Garfield DH, Shen K, Wang J. Stromal cells in tumor microenvironment and breast cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2013;32(1-2):303–315. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Received: May 9 2018
Revision requested: June 11 2018
Revision received: Dec 14 2018
Accepted: Jan 2 2019
Published online: Feb 12 2019
Published in print: Apr 2019