Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31514736›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2019

Radiomic signatures with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtypes: initial results.

Doris Leithner, Joao V Horvat, Maria Adele Marino, Blanca Bernard-Davila, Maxine S Jochelson, R Elena Ochoa-Albiztegui, Danny F Martinez, Elizabeth A Morris, Sunitha Thakur, Katja Pinker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 80 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Nomogram for reducing unnecessary biopsies of breast lesions based on MRI and clinical features: a multi-center retrospective cohort study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. MRI-Derived Radiomics For Classifying Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes: a Modeling Approach.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2025
    Article

20 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

10 authors.

Doris LeithnerDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Joao V HorvatDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Maria Adele MarinoDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Blanca Bernard-DavilaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Maxine S JochelsonDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
R Elena Ochoa-AlbizteguiDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Danny F MartinezDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Elizabeth A MorrisDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Sunitha ThakurDepartment of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Katja PinkerDepartment of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th St, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10065, USA. pinkerdk@mskcc.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2722-7331

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiomic signatures extracted from contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) for the assessment of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtypes.

methodsOne hundred and forty-three patients with biopsy-proven breast cancer who underwent CE-MRI at 3 T were included in this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study. The training dataset comprised 91 patients (luminal A, n = 49; luminal B, n = 8; HER2-enriched, n = 11; triple negative, n = 23), while the validation dataset comprised 52 patients from a second institution (luminal A, n = 17; luminal B, n = 17; triple negative, n = 18). Radiomic analysis of manually segmented tumors included calculation of features derived from the first-order histogram (HIS), co-occurrence matrix (COM), run-length matrix (RLM), absolute gradient (GRA), autoregressive model (ARM), discrete Haar wavelet transform (WAV), and lesion geometry (GEO). Fisher, probability of error and average correlation (POE + ACC), and mutual information coefficients were used for feature selection. Linear discriminant analysis followed by k-nearest neighbor classification (with leave-one-out cross-validation) was used for pairwise radiomic-based separation of receptor status and molecular subtypes. Histopathology served as the standard of reference.

resultsIn the training dataset, radiomic signatures yielded the following accuracies > 80%: luminal B vs. luminal A, 84.2% (mainly based on COM features); luminal B vs. triple negative, 83.9% (mainly based on GEO features); luminal B vs. all others, 89% (mainly based on COM features); and HER2-enriched vs. all others, 81.3% (mainly based on COM features). Radiomic signatures were successfully validated in the separate validation dataset for luminal A vs. luminal B (79.4%) and luminal B vs. triple negative (77.1%).

conclusionsIn this preliminary study, radiomic signatures with CE-MRI enable the assessment of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtypes with high diagnostic accuracy. These results need to be confirmed in future larger studies.

Indexed as

Magnetic Resonance ImagingRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAdultAgedBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, TumorErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesBreast cancerContrast-enhancedMagnetic resonance imagingMolecular subtypeRadiomics

Identifiers

PMID31514736
PMCPMC6739929

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.