Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33382837›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Comparison of methods for texture analysis of QUS parametric images in the characterization of breast lesions.

Laurentius O Osapoetra, William Chan, William Tran, Michael C Kolios, Gregory J Czarnota

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. H-Scan Ultrasound Monitoring of Breast Cancer Response to Chemotherapy and Validation With Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Oncotarget · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Laurentius O OsapoetraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9278-0953
William ChanUniversity of Waterloo, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
William TranDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael C KoliosDepartment of Physics, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-9994-8293
Gregory J CzarnotaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate and timely diagnosis of breast carcinoma is very crucial because of its high incidence and high morbidity. Screening can improve overall prognosis by detecting the disease early. Biopsy remains as the gold standard for pathological confirmation of malignancy and tumour grading. The development of diagnostic imaging techniques as an alternative for the rapid and accurate characterization of breast masses is necessitated. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) spectroscopy is a modality well suited for this purpose. This study was carried out to evaluate different texture analysis methods applied on QUS spectral parametric images for the characterization of breast lesions.

methodsParametric images of mid-band-fit (MBF), spectral-slope (SS), spectral-intercept (SI), average scatterer diameter (ASD), and average acoustic concentration (AAC) were determined using QUS spectroscopy from 193 patients with breast lesions. Texture methods were used to quantify heterogeneities of the parametric images. Three statistical-based approaches for texture analysis that include Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Gray Level Run-length Matrix (GRLM), and Gray Level Size Zone Matrix (GLSZM) methods were evaluated. QUS and texture-parameters were determined from both tumour core and a 5-mm tumour margin and were used in comparison to histopathological analysis in order to classify breast lesions as either benign or malignant. We developed a diagnostic model using different classification algorithms including linear discriminant analysis (LDA), k-nearest neighbours (KNN), support vector machine with radial basis function kernel (SVM-RBF), and an artificial neural network (ANN). Model performance was evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) and hold-out validation.

resultsClassifier performances ranged from 73% to 91% in terms of accuracy dependent on tumour margin inclusion and classifier methodology. Utilizing information from tumour core alone, the ANN achieved the best classification performance of 93% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 91% accuracy, 0.95 AUC using QUS parameters and their GLSZM texture features.

conclusionsA QUS-based framework and texture analysis methods enabled classification of breast lesions with >90% accuracy. The results suggest that optimizing method for extracting discriminative textural features from QUS spectral parametric images can improve classification performance. Evaluation of the proposed technique on a larger cohort of patients with proper validation technique demonstrated the robustness and generalization of the approach.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBreastBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedImage Processing, Computer-AssistedUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID33382837
PMCPMC7775053

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.