Digital Mammography in Breast Cancer: Additive Value of Radiomics of Breast Parenchyma.

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.

[1]  N F Boyd,et al.  Symmetry of projection in the quantitative analysis of mammographic images , 1996, European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation.

[2]  M. Shekhar,et al.  Host microenvironment in breast cancer development: Extracellular matrix–stromal cell contribution to neoplastic phenotype of epithelial cells in the breast , 2003, Breast Cancer Research.

[3]  N. Petrick,et al.  Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. , 1998, Medical physics.

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

[5]  M. Giger,et al.  Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance images , 2007, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[6]  M. Szklo,et al.  Mammographic parenchymal patterns and breast cancer risk. , 1987, Epidemiologic reviews.

[7]  Kunwei Shen,et al.  Stromal cells in tumor microenvironment and breast cancer , 2012, Cancer and Metastasis Reviews.

[8]  E. Conant,et al.  Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment , 2016, Breast Cancer Research.

[9]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for breast cancer risk assessment: feature selection. , 2000, Medical physics.

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

[11]  N. Petrick,et al.  Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. , 1999, Radiology.

[12]  J. Wolfe Breast patterns as an index of risk for developing breast cancer. , 1976, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  Li Lan,et al.  Evaluation of computer-aided diagnosis on a large clinical full-field digital mammographic dataset. , 2008, Academic radiology.

[14]  Martin J. Yaffe,et al.  Mammographic densities as a marker of human breast cancer risk and their use in chemoprevention , 2001, Current oncology reports.

[15]  M. Giger,et al.  Analysis of spiculation in the computerized classification of mammographic masses. , 1995, Medical physics.

[16]  Maryellen L. Giger,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 , 2012, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[17]  Mina J Bissell,et al.  Unraveling the microenvironmental influences on the normal mammary gland and breast cancer. , 2008, Seminars in cancer biology.

[18]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns for assessing breast cancer risk: effect of ROI size and location. , 2004, Medical physics.

[19]  Zena Werb,et al.  Stromal Effects on Mammary Gland Development and Breast Cancer , 2002, Science.

[20]  Hui Li,et al.  Relationships between computer-extracted mammographic texture pattern features and BRCA1/2mutation status: a cross-sectional study , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[21]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[22]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Association of computerized mammographic parenchymal pattern measure with breast cancer risk: a pilot case-control study. , 2011, Radiology.

[23]  S. Duffy,et al.  Size, node status and grade of breast tumours: association with mammographic parenchymal patterns , 2000, European Radiology.