Improving classification with forced labeling of other related classes: application to prediction of upstaged ductal carcinoma in situ using mammographic features

Predicting whether ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) identified at core biopsy contains occult invasive disease is an import task since these “upstaged” cases will affect further treatment planning. Therefore, a prediction model that better classifies pure DCIS and upstaged DCIS can help avoid overtreatment and overdiagnosis. In this work, we propose to improve this classification performance with the aid of two other related classes: Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia (ADH) and Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC). Our data set contains mammograms for 230 cases. Specifically, 66 of them are ADH cases; 99 of them are biopsy-proven DCIS cases, of whom 25 were found to contain invasive disease at the time of definitive surgery. The remaining 65 cases were diagnosed with IDC at core biopsy. Our hypothesis is that knowledge can be transferred from training with the easier and more readily available cases of benign but suspicious ADH versus IDC that is already apparent at initial biopsy. Thus, embedding both ADH and IDC cases to the classifier will improve the performance of distinguishing upstaged DCIS from pure DCIS. We extracted 113 mammographic features based on a radiologist’s annotation of clusters.Our method then added both ADH and IDC cases during training, where ADH were “force labeled” or treated by the classifier as pure DCIS (negative) cases, and IDC were labeled as upstaged DCIS (positive) cases. A logistic regression classifier was built based on the designed training dataset to perform a prediction of whether biopsy-proven DCIS cases contain invasive cancer. The performance was assessed by repeated 5-fold CrossValidation and Receiver Operating Characteristic(ROC) curve analysis. While prediction performance with only training on DCIS dataset had an average AUC of 0.607(%95CI, 0.479-0.721). By adding both ADH and IDC cases for training, we improved the performance to 0.691(95%CI, 0.581-0.801).

[1]  C. Lee,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed with stereotactic core needle biopsy: can invasion be predicted? , 2000, Radiology.

[2]  H. Park,et al.  A nomogram for predicting underestimation of invasiveness in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed by preoperative needle biopsy. , 2013, Breast.

[3]  I. Ellis,et al.  An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens , 2006, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[4]  Bircan Erbas,et al.  The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review , 2006, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  David L. Page,et al.  Continued observation of the natural history of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ reaffirms proclivity for local recurrence even after more than 30 years of follow up , 2014, Modern Pathology.

[6]  Guo Zi-bai,et al.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast:A Systematic Review of Incidence,Treatment,and Outcomes , 2011 .

[7]  M. Sherman,et al.  Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[8]  D. Evans,et al.  Prediction of the presence of invasive disease from the measurement of extent of malignant microcalcification on mammography and ductal carcinoma in situ grade at core biopsy. , 2009, Clinical radiology.

[9]  Joseph Y. Lo,et al.  Prediction of occult invasive disease in ductal carcinoma in situ using computer-extracted mammographic features , 2017, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Lars J. Grimm,et al.  Can Occult Invasive Disease in Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Be Predicted Using Computer-extracted Mammographic Features? , 2017, Academic radiology.

[11]  Shou‐Tung Chen,et al.  Preoperative clinicopathologic factors and breast magnetic resonance imaging features can predict ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive components. , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[12]  D. Allred,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.