Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35565261›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Prediction of Breast Cancer Histological Outcome by Radiomics and Artificial Intelligence Analysis in Contrast-Enhanced Mammography.

Antonella Petrillo, Roberta Fusco, Elio Di Bernardo, Teresa Petrosino, Maria Luisa Barretta, Annamaria Porto, Vincenza Granata, Maurizio Di Bonito, Annarita Fanizzi, Raffaella Massafra and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Antonella PetrilloRadiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2465-5370
Roberta FuscoMedical Oncology Division, Igea SpA, 80013 Naples, Italy.
Elio Di BernardoMedical Oncology Division, Igea SpA, 80013 Naples, Italy.
Teresa PetrosinoRadiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Maria Luisa BarrettaRadiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Annamaria PortoRadiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Vincenza GranataRadiology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6601-3221
Maurizio Di BonitoPathology Division, Istituto Nazionale Tumori-IRCCS-Fondazione G. Pascale, 80131 Naples, Italy.
Annarita FanizziDirezione Scientifica-IRCCS Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Via Orazio Flacco 65, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Raffaella MassafraSSD Fisica Sanitaria-IRCCS Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Via Orazio Flacco 65, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Nicole PetruzzellisSSD Fisica Sanitaria-IRCCS Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Via Orazio Flacco 65, 70124 Bari, Italy.
Francesca ArezzoObstetrics and Gynecology Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Piazza Giulio Cesare 11, 70124 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8914-9594
Luca BoldriniDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, 00168 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5631-1575
Daniele La ForgiaStruttura Semplice Dipartimentale di Radiodiagnostica Senologica-IRCCS Istituto Tumori Giovanni Paolo II, Via Orazio Flacco 65, 70124 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3902-4523
Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITIstituto Tumori Bari · ITIGEA Clinical Biophysics (Italy) · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · IT

Funding

Alleanza Contro il Cancro (ACC)" network. RCR-2021-23671213
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate radiomics features in order to: differentiate malignant versus benign lesions; predict low versus moderate and high grading; identify positive or negative hormone receptors; and discriminate positive versus negative human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 related to breast cancer.

methodsA total of 182 patients with known breast lesions and that underwent Contrast-Enhanced Mammography were enrolled in this retrospective study. The reference standard was pathology (118 malignant lesions and 64 benign lesions). A total of 837 textural metrics were extracted by manually segmenting the region of interest from both craniocaudally (CC) and mediolateral oblique (MLO) views. Non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, receiver operating characteristic, logistic regression and tree-based machine learning algorithms were used. The Adaptive Synthetic Sampling balancing approach was used and a feature selection process was implemented.

resultsIn univariate analysis, the classification of malignant versus benign lesions achieved the best performance when considering the original_gldm_DependenceNonUniformity feature extracted on CC view (accuracy of 88.98%). An accuracy of 83.65% was reached in the classification of grading, whereas a slightly lower value of accuracy (81.65%) was found in the classification of the presence of the hormone receptor; the features extracted were the original_glrlm_RunEntropy and the original_gldm_DependenceNonUniformity, respectively. The results of multivariate analysis achieved the best performances when using two or more features as predictors for classifying malignant versus benign lesions from CC view images (max test accuracy of 95.83% with a non-regularized logistic regression). Considering the features extracted from MLO view images, the best test accuracy (91.67%) was obtained when predicting the grading using a classification-tree algorithm. Combinations of only two features, extracted from both CC and MLO views, always showed test accuracy values greater than or equal to 90.00%, with the only exception being the prediction of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, where the best performance (test accuracy of 89.29%) was obtained with the random forest algorithm.

conclusionsThe results confirm that the identification of malignant breast lesions and the differentiation of histological outcomes and some molecular subtypes of tumors (mainly positive hormone receptor tumors) can be obtained with satisfactory accuracy through both univariate and multivariate analysis of textural features extracted from Contrast-Enhanced Mammography images.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceContrast-Enhanced Mammography (CEM)Dynamic Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI)radiomics

Identifiers

PMID35565261
PMCPMC9102628
OpenAlexW4224862078

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.