Combined Benefit of Quantitative Three-Compartment Breast Image Analysis and Mammography Radiomics in the Classification of Breast Masses in a Clinical Data Set.

Purpose To investigate the combination of mammography radiomics and quantitative three-compartment breast (3CB) image analysis of dual-energy mammography to limit unnecessary benign breast biopsies. Materials and Methods For this prospective study, dual-energy craniocaudal and mediolateral oblique mammograms were obtained immediately before biopsy in 109 women (mean age, 51 years; range, 31-85 years) with Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System category 4 or 5 breast masses (35 invasive cancers, 74 benign) from 2013 through 2017. The three quantitative compartments of water, lipid, and protein thickness at each pixel were calculated from the attenuation at high and low energy by using a within-image phantom. Masses were automatically segmented and features were extracted from the low-energy mammograms and the quantitative compartment images. Tenfold cross-validations using a linear discriminant classifier with predefined feature signatures helped differentiate between malignant and benign masses by means of (a) water-lipid-protein composition images alone, (b) mammography radiomics alone, and (c) a combined image analysis of both. Positive predictive value of biopsy performed (PPV3) at maximum sensitivity was the primary performance metric, and results were compared with those for conventional diagnostic digital mammography. Results The PPV3 for conventional diagnostic digital mammography in our data set was 32.1% (35 of 109; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 23.9%, 41.3%), with a sensitivity of 100%. In comparison, combined mammography radiomics plus quantitative 3CB image analysis had PPV3 of 49% (34 of 70; 95% CI: 36.5%, 58.9%; P < .001), with a sensitivity of 97% (34 of 35; 95% CI: 90.3%, 100%; P < .001) and 35.8% (39 of 109) fewer total biopsies (P < .001). Conclusion Quantitative three-compartment breast image analysis of breast masses combined with mammography radiomics has the potential to reduce unnecessary breast biopsies. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

[1]  J. Boyages,et al.  Toward the breast screening balance sheet: cumulative risk of false positives for annual versus biennial mammograms commencing at age 40 or 50 , 2014, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[2]  M. Giger,et al.  Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis observer study with independent database of mammograms. , 2002, Radiology.

[3]  Kenji Suzuki,et al.  A dual-stage method for lesion segmentation on digital mammograms. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  Yit Yoong Lim,et al.  Accuracy of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Depicting Breast Cancer Subgroups in a UK Retrospective Reading Study (TOMMY Trial). , 2015, Radiology.

[5]  B K Rutt,et al.  Invasive carcinomas and fibroadenomas of the breast: comparison of microvessel distributions--implications for imaging modalities. , 1998, Radiology.

[6]  Catherine M. Appleton,et al.  The Future of Contrast-Enhanced Mammography. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[7]  J. Lewin,et al.  Contrast-enhanced tomosynthesis: The best of both worlds or more of the same? , 2016, European journal of radiology.

[8]  Oguzhan Alagoz,et al.  Benefits, harms, and costs for breast cancer screening after US implementation of digital mammography. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  N. Houssami,et al.  Rapid review: radiomics and breast cancer , 2018, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[10]  Erich P Huang,et al.  Quantitative MRI radiomics in the prediction of molecular classifications of breast cancer subtypes in the TCGA/TCIA data set , 2016, npj Breast Cancer.

[11]  R. Hubbard,et al.  Higher mammography screening costs without appreciable clinical benefit: the case of digital mammography. , 2014, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[12]  Felix Diekmann,et al.  Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[13]  Lorenzo L. Pesce,et al.  Reliable and computationally efficient maximum-likelihood estimation of "proper" binormal ROC curves. , 2007, Academic radiology.

[14]  Erich P Huang,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. , 2016, Radiology.

[15]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  Evaluation of clinical breast MR imaging performed with prototype computer-aided diagnosis breast MR imaging workstation: reader study. , 2011, Radiology.

[16]  Karen Drukker,et al.  Mammographic quantitative image analysis and biologic image composition for breast lesion characterization and classification. , 2014, Medical physics.

[17]  K. Mandl,et al.  National expenditure for false-positive mammograms and breast cancer overdiagnoses estimated at $4 billion a year. , 2015, Health affairs.

[18]  Ehsan Samei,et al.  Dual-energy contrast-enhanced breast tomosynthesis: optimization of beam quality for dose and image quality , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[19]  Jessica W T Leung,et al.  Biomarkers and Imaging of Breast Cancer. , 2017, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  B. Tromberg,et al.  In vivo absorption, scattering, and physiologic properties of 58 malignant breast tumors determined by broadband diffuse optical spectroscopy. , 2006, Journal of biomedical optics.

[21]  E. Kinney.  Primer of Biostatistics , 1987 .

[22]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Evaluation of the effect of computer-aided classification of benign and malignant lesions on reader performance in automated three-dimensional breast ultrasound. , 2013, Academic radiology.

[23]  D. Miglioretti,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[24]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Compositional breast imaging using a dual-energy mammography protocol. , 2009, Medical physics.

[25]  Hiroyuki Abe,et al.  Quantitative texture analysis: robustness of radiomics across two digital mammography manufacturers’ systems , 2017, Journal of medical imaging.

[26]  S. Holm.  A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure , 1979 .

[27]  M. Giger,et al.  Multimodality computer-aided breast cancer diagnosis with FFDM and DCE-MRI. , 2010, Academic radiology.

[28]  Rebecca A Hubbard,et al.  Outcomes of screening mammography by frequency, breast density, and postmenopausal hormone therapy. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[29]  Paul Kinahan,et al.  Radiomics: Images Are More than Pictures, They Are Data , 2015, Radiology.

[30]  Michael Götz,et al.  Prediction of malignancy by a radiomic signature from contrast agent‐free diffusion MRI in suspicious breast lesions found on screening mammography. , 2017, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[31]  D. Kopans,et al.  Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Recall or Biopsy Recommendation After 10 Years of Screening Mammography: A Cohort Study , 2012 .

[32]  S Friedman,et al.  Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff‐Bloom‐Richardson (SBR). An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas , 1989, Cancer.