Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32708512›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Radiomics for Tumor Characterization in Breast Cancer Patients: A Feasibility Study Comparing Contrast-Enhanced Mammography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Maria Adele Marino, Doris Leithner, Janice Sung, Daly Avendano, Elizabeth A Morris, Katja Pinker, Maxine S Jochelson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. State-of-the-art for contrast-enhanced mammography.The British journal of radiology · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.

Maria Adele MarinoMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Doris LeithnerMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Janice SungMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Daly AvendanoMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8433-7211
Elizabeth A MorrisMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.
Katja PinkerMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2722-7331
Maxine S JochelsonMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, New York, NY 10065, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4012-2470
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USGoethe University Frankfurt · DEUniversity of Messina · IT

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Nicholas D Socci · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Breast Cancer Research Foundation NANCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NIH HHS P30 CA008748Susan G. Komen NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of our intra-individual comparison study was to investigate and compare the potential of radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast for the non-invasive assessment of tumor invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade in patients with primary breast cancer. This retrospective study included 48 female patients with 49 biopsy-proven breast cancers who underwent pretreatment breast CEM and MRI. Radiomics analysis was performed by using MaZda software. Radiomics parameters were correlated with tumor histology (invasive vs. non-invasive), hormonal status (HR+ vs. HR-), and grading (low grade G1 + G2 vs. high grade G3). CEM radiomics analysis yielded classification accuracies of up to 92% for invasive vs. non-invasive breast cancers, 95.6% for HR+ vs. HR- breast cancers, and 77.8% for G1 + G2 vs. G3 invasive cancers. MRI radiomics analysis yielded classification accuracies of up to 90% for invasive vs. non-invasive breast cancers, 82.6% for HR+ vs. HR- breast cancers, and 77.8% for G1+G2 vs. G3 cancers. Preliminary results indicate a potential of both radiomics analysis of DCE-MRI and CEM for non-invasive assessment of tumor-invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade. CEM may serve as an alternative to MRI if MRI is not available or contraindicated.

Indexed as

breast cancercharacterizationcontrast-enhanced mammographydiagnosismagnetic resonance imagingprognosisradiomicstexture analysis

Identifiers

PMID32708512
PMCPMC7400681
OpenAlexW3043125719

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.