Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30569330›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2019

Predicting underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ: a comparison between radiomics and conventional approaches.

Jiao Li, Yan Song, Shuoyu Xu, Jinhua Wang, Huabin Huang, Weimei Ma, Xinhua Jiang, Yaopan Wu, Hongming Cai, Li Li

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jiao LiDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yan SongSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Shuoyu XuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Jinhua WangDepartment of Medical Imaging Center, Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University, Shenzhen, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Huabin HuangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Weimei MaDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Xinhua JiangDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Yaopan WuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China.
Hongming CaiSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Li LiDepartment of Medical Imaging, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China. li2@mail.sysu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4712-2692
Sun Yat-sen University · CNSouth China University of Technology · CNSouthern Medical University Shenzhen Hospital · CN

Funding

Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province 2016A010101013the Fundamental Research Fund for the Central Universities 2017ZD051the Health & Medical Collaborative Innovation Project of Guangzhou City 201604020003the National Natural Science Foundation of China 61372141the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangdong Province, China 2016B090918066the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou, China 201704020060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to investigate the feasibility of predicting invasion carcinoma from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions diagnosed by preoperative core needle biopsy using radiomics signatures, clinical imaging characteristics, and breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) descriptors on mammography.

methodsRetrospectively, we enrolled 362 DCIS patients diagnosed by core needle biopsy, 110 (30.4%) of which had invasive carcinoma confirmed by operation and pathology. We analyzed the images identified suspicious calcification from 250 subjects (161 pure DCIS and 89 DCIS with invasion). A total of 569 calcification radiomics signatures were extracted from microcalcification for each patient. We included a group of routine clinical imaging characteristics and BI-RADS descriptors for comparison purpose. Five feature selection and seven classification methods were evaluated in terms of their prediction performance. We compared the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) averaged from tenfold cross-validation of different feature sets to identify the best combination of feature selection and classification methods.

resultsOptimal feature selection and classification methods were identified after evaluating various combinations of feature sets. The best performance was achieved using both radiomics and clinical imaging characteristics (AUC = 0.72) performing better than BI-RADS descriptors or radiomics, but was no significant difference with clinical imaging characteristics (AUC = 0.66). The most significant features found were morphology signatures, first-order statistics, asymmetry/mass prevalence, and nuclear grade.

conclusionsWe found that the prediction model established using microcalcifications radiomics signatures and clinical imaging characteristics has the potential to identify an understaging of invasive breast cancer.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBiopsy, Large-Core NeedleBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm InvasivenessRetrospective StudiesROC CurveDuctal carcinoma in situMachine learningMammographyMicrocalcificationRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID30569330
OpenAlexW2904967867

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.