Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29134191›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.)2018

Assessing treatment response in triple-negative breast cancer from quantitative image analysis in perfusion magnetic resonance imaging.

Imon Banerjee, Sadhika Malladi, Daniela Lee, Adrien Depeursinge, Melinda Telli, Jafi Lipson, Daniel Golden, Daniel L Rubin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Machine learning in breast MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Application of Radiomics in Breast MRI: A Review.Technology in cancer research & treatment
    Review
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.

Imon BanerjeeStanford University, Department of Radiology, Stanford, California, United States.
Sadhika MalladiMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States.
Daniela LeeYale University, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, New Haven, Connecticut, United States.
Adrien DepeursingeUniversity of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland (HES-SO), Department Institute of Information Systems, Sierre, Switzerland.
Melinda TelliStanford University, Department of Medicine (Oncology), Stanford, California, United States.
Jafi LipsonStanford University, Department of Radiology, Stanford, California, United States.
Daniel GoldenArterys Inc., San Francisco, California, United States.
Daniel L RubinStanford University, Department of Radiology, Stanford, California, United States.

Funding

STANFORD CANCER IMAGING TRAINING (SCIT) PROGRAMT32CA009695 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI BRUCE L DANIEL, Jeremy Dahl · 1993 to 2026
$7.7M
Qualification and Deployment of Imaging Biomarkers of Cancer Treatment ResponseU01CA190214 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2015 to 2020
$3.1M
Computing, Optimizing, and Evaluating Quantitative Cancer Imaging BiomarkersU01CA187947 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI NAPEL, SANDY A., RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2015 to 2019
$2.9M
Computerized Quantitative Imaging Assessment of Tumor BurdenU01CA142555 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI RUBIN, DANIEL L · 2010 to 2014
$2.9M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009695NCI NIH HHS U01 CA142555NCI NIH HHS U01 CA187947NCI NIH HHS U01 CA190214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) is sensitive but not specific to determining treatment response in early stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. We propose an efficient computerized technique for assessing treatment response, specifically the residual tumor (RT) status and pathological complete response (pCR), in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The proposed approach is based on Riesz wavelet analysis of pharmacokinetic maps derived from noninvasive DCE-MRI scans, obtained before and after treatment. We compared the performance of Riesz features with the traditional gray level co-occurrence matrices and a comprehensive characterization of the lesion that includes a wide range of quantitative features (e.g., shape and boundary). We investigated a set of predictive models ([Formula: see text]) incorporating distinct combinations of quantitative characterizations and statistical models at different time points of the treatment and some area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values we reported are above 0.8. The most efficient models are based on first-order statistics and Riesz wavelets, which predicted RT with an AUC value of 0.85 and pCR with an AUC value of 0.83, improving results reported in a previous study by [Formula: see text]. Our findings suggest that Riesz texture analysis of TNBC lesions can be considered a potential framework for optimizing TNBC patient care.

Indexed as

image featuresmachine learningneoadjuvant chemotherapyquantitative imagingtriple-negative breast cancer

Identifiers

PMID29134191
PMCPMC5668126

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.