Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31675151›Full record

ArticleJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI2020

Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Breast Lesions on DCE-MRI by Using Radiomics and Deep Learning With Consideration of Peritumor Tissue.

Jiejie Zhou, Yang Zhang, Kai-Ting Chang, Kyoung Eun Lee, Ouchen Wang, Jiance Li, Yezhi Lin, Zhifang Pan, Peter Chang, Daniel Chow and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

132 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. [Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

72 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

12 authors.

Jiejie ZhouDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliate Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Yang ZhangDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Kai-Ting ChangDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Kyoung Eun LeeDepartment of Radiology, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University, Seoul, Korea.
Ouchen WangDepartment of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, First Affiliate Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Jiance LiDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliate Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Yezhi LinInformation Technology Center, First Affiliate Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Zhifang PanInformation Technology Center, First Affiliate Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Peter ChangDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Daniel ChowDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.
Meihao WangDepartment of Radiology, First Affiliate Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China.
Min-Ying SuDepartment of Radiological Sciences, University of California, Irvine, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3069-0271

Funding

Univ.of Calif., Irvine Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA062203 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Melanie Funes · 1994 to 2026
$57.9M
Prediction of Neoadjuvant Chemo Pathological Response Using MRI MarkersR01CA127927 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI SU, MIN-YING L. · 2008 to 2017
$5.0M
Mammographic Density and Metabolic Genotyping for Predicting Cancer PrognosisR21CA208938 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI CHEN, JEON-HOR, SU, MIN-YING L. · 2017 to 2018
$370k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA062203NCI NIH HHS R01 CA127927NCI NIH HHS R21 CA208938
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputer-aided methods have been widely applied to diagnose lesions detected on breast MRI, but fully-automatic diagnosis using deep learning is rarely reported. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of mass lesions using region of interest (ROI)-based, radiomics and deep-learning methods, by taking peritumor tissues into consideration. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective. POPULATION: In all, 133 patients with histologically confirmed 91 malignant and 62 benign mass lesions for training (74 patients with 48 malignant and 26 benign lesions for testing). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T, using the volume imaging for breast assessment (VIBRANT) dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) sequence. ASSESSMENT: 3D tumor segmentation was done automatically by using fuzzy-C-means algorithm with connected-component labeling. A total of 99 texture and histogram parameters were calculated for each case, and 15 were selected using random forest to build a radiomics model. Deep learning was implemented using ResNet50, evaluated with 10-fold crossvalidation. The tumor alone, smallest bounding box, and 1.2, 1.5, 2.0 times enlarged boxes were used as inputs. STATISTICAL TESTS: The malignancy probability was calculated using each model, and the threshold of 0.5 was used to make a diagnosis.

resultsIn the training dataset, the diagnostic accuracy was 76% using three ROI-based parameters, 84% using the radiomics model, and 86% using ROI + radiomics model. In deep learning using the per-slice basis, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was comparable for tumor alone, smallest and 1.2 times box (AUC = 0.97-0.99), which were significantly higher than 1.5 and 2.0 times box (AUC = 0.86 and 0.71, respectively). For per-lesion diagnosis, the highest accuracy of 91% was achieved when using the smallest bounding box, and that decreased to 84% for tumor alone and 1.2 times box, and further to 73% for 1.5 times box and 69% for 2.0 times box. In the independent testing dataset, the per-lesion diagnostic accuracy was also the highest when using the smallest bounding box, 89%. DATA

conclusionDeep learning using ResNet50 achieved a high diagnostic accuracy. Using the smallest bounding box containing proximal peritumor tissue as input had higher accuracy compared to using tumor alone or larger boxes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDeep LearningBreastContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesContrast Mediabreast cancer diagnosisDCE-MRIdeep learningperitumor tissueradiomicsResNet

Identifiers

PMID31675151
PMCPMC7709823

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.