Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34226990›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2022

Radiomic machine learning for predicting prognostic biomarkers and molecular subtypes of breast cancer using tumor heterogeneity and angiogenesis properties on MRI.

Ji Young Lee, Kwang-Sig Lee, Bo Kyoung Seo, Kyu Ran Cho, Ok Hee Woo, Sung Eun Song, Eun-Kyung Kim, Hye Yoon Lee, Jung Sun Kim, Jaehyung Cha

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 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.

Ji Young Lee *Department of Radiology, Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, 170 Juhwa-ro, Ilsanseo-gu, Goyang, Gyeonggi-do, 10380, Republic of Korea.
Kwang-Sig Lee *AI Center, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Inchon-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea.
Bo Kyoung SeoDepartment of Radiology, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 123 Jeokgeum-ro, Danwon-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 15355, Republic of Korea. seoboky@korea.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9512-5361
Kyu Ran ChoDepartment of Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Goryeodae-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea.
Ok Hee WooDepartment of Radiology, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 148 Gurodong-ro, Guro-gu, Seoul, 08308, Republic of Korea.
Sung Eun SongDepartment of Radiology, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73, Goryeodae-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 02841, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Kyung KimDepartment of Radiology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 363, Dongbaekjukjeon-daero, Giheung-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do, 16995, Republic of Korea.
Hye Yoon LeeDivision of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Department of Surgery, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Jung Sun KimDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.
Jaehyung ChaMedical Science Research Center, Korea University Ansan Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea.

Funding

Dongkook Life Science Co.,Ltd. NAKorea University K2011241Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) of Korea IITP-2018-0-01405Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) of Korea NRF-2021R1A2C1010565
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate machine learning approaches for radiomics-based prediction of prognostic biomarkers and molecular subtypes of breast cancer using quantification of tumor heterogeneity and angiogenesis properties on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsThis prospective study examined 291 invasive cancers in 288 patients who underwent breast MRI at 3 T before treatment between May 2017 and July 2019. Texture and perfusion analyses were performed and a total of 160 parameters for each cancer were extracted. Relationships between MRI parameters and prognostic biomarkers were analyzed using five machine learning algorithms. Each model was built using only texture features, only perfusion features, or both. Model performance was compared using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the DeLong method, and the importance of MRI parameters in prediction was derived.

resultsTexture parameters were associated with the status of hormone receptors, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki67, tumor size, grade, and molecular subtypes (p < 0.002). Perfusion parameters were associated with the status of hormone receptors and Ki67, grade, and molecular subtypes (p < 0.003). The random forest model integrating texture and perfusion parameters showed the highest performance (AUC = 0.75). The performance of the random forest model was the best with a special scale filter of 0 (AUC = 0.80). The important parameters for prediction were texture irregularity (entropy) and relative extracellular extravascular space (V

conclusionsRadiomic machine learning that integrates tumor heterogeneity and angiogenesis properties on MRI has the potential to noninvasively predict prognostic factors of breast cancer. KEY POINTS: • Machine learning, integrating tumor heterogeneity and angiogenesis properties on MRI, can be applied to predict prognostic biomarkers and molecular subtypes in breast cancer. • The random forest model showed the best predictive performance among the five machine learning models (logistic regression, decision tree, naïve Bayes, random forest, and artificial neural network). • The most important MRI parameters for predicting prognostic factors in breast cancer were texture irregularity (entropy) among texture parameters and relative extracellular extravascular space (V

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsBayes TheoremFemaleHumansMachine LearningMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrognosisProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesBiomarkers, tumorBreast neoplasmsMachine learningMagnetic resonance imagingPerfusion imaging

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.