Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30916835›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2019

Characterization of Sub-1 cm Breast Lesions Using Radiomics Analysis.

Peter Gibbs, Natsuko Onishi, Meredith Sadinski, Katherine M Gallagher, Mary Hughes, Danny F Martinez, Elizabeth A Morris, Elizabeth J Sutton

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Machine learning in breast MRI.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Peter GibbsBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Natsuko OnishiBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4495-9187
Meredith SadinskiBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Katherine M GallagherBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Mary HughesBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Danny F MartinezBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Elizabeth A MorrisBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Elizabeth J SuttonBreast Imaging Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundSmall breast lesions are difficult to visually categorize due to the inherent lack of morphological and kinetic detail. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of radiomics analysis in discriminating small benign and malignant lesions utilizing model free parameter maps. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective, single center. POPULATION: In all, 149 patients, with a total of 165 lesions scored as BI-RADS 4 or 5 on MRI, with an enhancing volume of <0.52 cm FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Higher spatial resolution T ASSESSMENT: Parameter maps reflecting initial enhancement, overall enhancement, area under the enhancement curve, and washout were generated. Heterogeneity measures based on first-order statistics, gray level co-occurrence matrices, run length matrices, size zone matrices, and neighborhood gray tone difference matrices were calculated. Data were split into a training dataset (~75% of cases) and a test dataset (~25% of cases). STATISTICAL TESTS: Comparison of medians was assessed using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient was utilized to determine significant correlations between individual features. Finally, a support vector machine was employed to build multiparametric predictive models.

resultsUnivariate analysis revealed significant differences between benign and malignant lesions for 58/133 calculated features (P < 0.05). Support vector machine analysis resulted in areas under the curve (AUCs) ranging from 0.75-0.81. High negative (>89%) and positive predictive values (>83%) were found for all models. DATA

conclusionRadiomics analysis of small contrast-enhancing breast lesions is of value. Texture features calculated from later timepoints on the enhancement curve appear to offer limited additional value when compared with features determined from initial enhancement for this patient cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1468-1477.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAlgorithmsBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedKineticsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSupport Vector MachineYoung AdultbreastMRIradiomicssmall lesions

Identifiers

PMID30916835
PMCPMC8500553
OpenAlexW2927696803

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.