Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32548286›Full record

ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2020

Comparison of Segmentation Methods in Assessing Background Parenchymal Enhancement as a Biomarker for Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy.

Alex Anh-Tu Nguyen, Vignesh A Arasu, Fredrik Strand, Wen Li, Natsuko Onishi, Jessica Gibbs, Ella F Jones, Bonnie N Joe, Laura J Esserman, David C Newitt and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Imaging: The Rise of AI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alex Anh-Tu NguyenDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Vignesh A ArasuDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Fredrik StrandDepartment of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; and.
Wen LiDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Natsuko OnishiDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Jessica GibbsDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Ella F JonesDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Bonnie N JoeDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Laura J EssermanDepartment of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
David C NewittDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
Nola M HyltonDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
University of California, San Francisco · USKaiser Permanente Vallejo Medical Center · USKarolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

The I SPY 2.2 TRIAL: Evolving to Imaging and Molecular Biomarker Response Directed Adaptive Sequential Treatment to Optimize Breast Cancer OutcomesP01CA210961 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Nola M. Hylton-Watson · 2017 to 2026
$22.9M
Real-time In Vivo MRI Biomarkers for Breast Cancer Pre-Operative Treatment TrialsR01CA132870 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HYLTON-WATSON, NOLA M., NEWITT, DAVID C · 2008 to 2019
$4.8M
Dedicated breast PET and MRI for characterization of breast cancer and its response to therapyR01CA227763 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Natsuko Onishi Yamashita · 2019 to 2026
$3.6M
Quantitative Imaging for Assessing Breast Cancer Response to TreatmentU01CA225427 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HYLTON-WATSON, NOLA M. · 2018 to 2022
$3.2M
Quantitative Imaging for Assessing Breast Cancer Response to TreatmentU01CA151235 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI HYLTON-WATSON, NOLA M. · 2011 to 2015
$2.8M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA210961NCI NIH HHS R01 CA132870NCI NIH HHS R01 CA227763NCI NIH HHS U01 CA151235NCI NIH HHS U01 CA225427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast parenchymal enhancement (BPE) has shown association with breast cancer risk and response to neoadjuvant treatment. However, BPE quantification is challenging, and there is no standardized segmentation method for measurement. We investigated the use of a fully automated breast fibroglandular tissue segmentation method to calculate BPE from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for use as a predictor of pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant treatment in the I-SPY 2 TRIAL. In this trial, patients had DCE-MRI at baseline (T0), after 3 weeks of treatment (T1), after 12 weeks of treatment and between drug regimens (T2), and after completion of treatment (T3). A retrospective analysis of 2 cohorts was performed: one with 735 patients and another with a final cohort of 340 patients, meeting a high-quality benchmark for segmentation. We evaluated 3 subvolumes of interest segmented from bilateral T1-weighted axial breast DCE-MRI: full stack (all axial slices), half stack (center 50% of slices), and center 5 slices. The differences between methods were assessed, and a univariate logistic regression model was implemented to determine the predictive performance of each segmentation method. The results showed that the half stack method provided the best compromise between sampling error from too little tissue and inclusion of incorrectly segmented tissues from extreme superior and inferior regions. Our results indicate that BPE calculated using the half stack segmentation approach has potential as an early biomarker for response to treatment in the hormone receptor-negative and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive subtype.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBiomarkers, TumorFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoadjuvant TherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, Tumorbackground parenchymal enhancement (BPE)breast cancerMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI)neoadjuvant chemotherapysegmentation

Identifiers

PMID32548286
PMCPMC7289261
OpenAlexW3032972144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.