Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24593733›Full record

Trial reportMedical physics2014

Mammographic quantitative image analysis and biologic image composition for breast lesion characterization and classification.

Karen Drukker, Fred Duewer, Maryellen L Giger, Serghei Malkov, Chris I Flowers, Bonnie Joe, Karla Kerlikowske, Jennifer S Drukteinis, Hui Li, John A Shepherd

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical physics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Karen DrukkerDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637.
Fred DuewerRadiology Department, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143.
Maryellen L GigerDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637.
Serghei MalkovRadiology Department, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143.
Chris I FlowersDepartment of Radiology, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida 33612.
Bonnie JoeRadiology Department, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143.
Karla KerlikowskeRadiology Department, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143.
Jennifer S DrukteinisDepartment of Radiology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida 33612.
Hui LiDepartment of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637.
John A ShepherdRadiology Department, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143.

Funding

Lesion Composition and Quantitative Imaging Analysis on Breast Cancer DiagnosisR01CA166945 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA · PI GIGER, MARYELLEN L., SHEPHERD, JOHN ALAN · 2013 to 2017
$3.3M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166945
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate whether biologic image composition of mammographic lesions can improve upon existing mammographic quantitative image analysis (QIA) in estimating the probability of malignancy.

methodsThe study population consisted of 45 breast lesions imaged with dual-energy mammography prior to breast biopsy with final diagnosis resulting in 10 invasive ductal carcinomas, 5 ductal carcinomain situ, 11 fibroadenomas, and 19 other benign diagnoses. Analysis was threefold: (1) The raw low-energy mammographic images were analyzed with an established in-house QIA method, "QIA alone," (2) the three-compartment breast (3CB) composition measure-derived from the dual-energy mammography-of water, lipid, and protein thickness were assessed, "3CB alone", and (3) information from QIA and 3CB was combined, "QIA + 3CB." Analysis was initiated from radiologist-indicated lesion centers and was otherwise fully automated. Steps of the QIA and 3CB methods were lesion segmentation, characterization, and subsequent classification for malignancy in leave-one-case-out cross-validation. Performance assessment included box plots, Bland-Altman plots, and Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis.

resultsThe area under the ROC curve (AUC) for distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions (invasive and DCIS) was 0.81 (standard error 0.07) for the "QIA alone" method, 0.72 (0.07) for "3CB alone" method, and 0.86 (0.04) for "QIA+3CB" combined. The difference in AUC was 0.043 between "QIA + 3CB" and "QIA alone" but failed to reach statistical significance (95% confidence interval [-0.17 to + 0.26]).

conclusionsIn this pilot study analyzing the new 3CB imaging modality, knowledge of the composition of breast lesions and their periphery appeared additive in combination with existing mammographic QIA methods for the distinction between different benign and malignant lesion types.

Indexed as

AutomationBiopsyBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLipidsMammographyProbabilityProspective StudiesRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedROC CurveWaterLipidsWater

Identifiers

PMID24593733
PMCPMC3978370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.