Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26756416›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2016

Breast cancer molecular subtype classifier that incorporates MRI features.

Elizabeth J Sutton, Brittany Z Dashevsky, Jung Hun Oh, Harini Veeraraghavan, Aditya P Apte, Sunitha B Thakur, Elizabeth A Morris, Joseph O Deasy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

66 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Elizabeth J SuttonDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Brittany Z DashevskyDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Jung Hun OhDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Harini VeeraraghavanDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Aditya P ApteDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Sunitha B ThakurDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Elizabeth A MorrisDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Joseph O DeasyDepartment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo use features extracted from magnetic resonance (MR) images and a machine-learning method to assist in differentiating breast cancer molecular subtypes. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant study received Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. We identified 178 breast cancer patients between 2006-2011 with: 1) ERPR + (n = 95, 53.4%), ERPR-/HER2 + (n = 35, 19.6%), or triple negative (TN, n = 48, 27.0%) invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), and 2) preoperative breast MRI at 1.5T or 3.0T. Shape, texture, and histogram-based features were extracted from each tumor contoured on pre- and three postcontrast MR images using in-house software. Clinical and pathologic features were also collected. Machine-learning-based (support vector machines) models were used to identify significant imaging features and to build models that predict IDC subtype. Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) was used to avoid model overfitting. Statistical significance was determined using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

resultsEach support vector machine fit in the LOOCV process generated a model with varying features. Eleven out of the top 20 ranked features were significantly different between IDC subtypes with P < 0.05. When the top nine pathologic and imaging features were incorporated, the predictive model distinguished IDC subtypes with an overall accuracy on LOOCV of 83.4%. The combined pathologic and imaging model's accuracy for each subtype was 89.2% (ERPR+), 63.6% (ERPR-/HER2+), and 82.5% (TN). When only the top nine imaging features were incorporated, the predictive model distinguished IDC subtypes with an overall accuracy on LOOCV of 71.2%. The combined pathologic and imaging model's accuracy for each subtype was 69.9% (ERPR+), 62.9% (ERPR-/HER2+), and 81.0% (TN).

conclusionWe developed a machine-learning-based predictive model using features extracted from MRI that can distinguish IDC subtypes with significant predictive power. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:122-129.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansImage EnhancementImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedObserver VariationReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityTriple Negative Breast NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumorbreast cancermachine-learningmolecular subtypesMRI texture

Identifiers

PMID26756416
PMCPMC5532744

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.