ArticleInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2019
Predicting underestimation of ductal carcinoma in situ: a comparison between radiomics and conventional approaches.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Applications in Diagnosis, Treatment Response, and Prognosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison study between stereotactic versus digital breast tomosynthesis-guided core needle biopsy.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Integrating radiomics into predictive models for low nuclear grade DCIS using machine learning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Differentiation between invasive ductal carcinoma and ductal carcinoma in situ by combining intratumoral and peritumoral ultrasound radiomics.Biomedical engineering online · 2024Article
- Interpretable Radiomic Signature for Breast Microcalcification Detection and Classification.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2024Article
- Multimodal Machine Learning-Based Ductal Carcinoma in situ Prediction from Breast Fibromatosis.Cancer management and research · 2024Article
- Ultrafast MRI and T1 and T2 Radiomics for Predicting Invasive Components in Ductal Carcinoma in Situ Diagnosed With Percutaneous Needle Biopsy.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Feasibility analysis of magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics features for preoperative prediction of nuclear grading of ductal carcinoma in situ.Gland surgery · 2023Article
- History of Mammography: Analysis of Breast Imaging Diagnostic Achievements over the Last Century.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- An Online Mammography Database with Biopsy Confirmed Types.Scientific data · 2023Article
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: an evaluation of its efficacy and research progress.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Ipsilateral Recurrence of DCIS in Relation to Radiomics Features on Contrast Enhanced Breast MRI.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Ductal carcinoma in situ: a risk prediction model for the underestimation of invasive breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2022Article
- Article
- Prediction of the histologic upgrade of ductal carcinomaFrontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Clinicopathologic breast cancer characteristics: predictions using global textural features of the ipsilateral breast mammogram.Radiological physics and technology · 2021Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Mammography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Current Concepts and Future Perspectives.Radiology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.