A hematological parameter-based model for distinguishing non-puerperal mastitis from invasive ductal carcinoma.

Purpose: Non-puerperal mastitis (NPM) accounts for approximately 4-5% of all benign breast lesions. Ultrasound is the preferred method for screening breast diseases; however, similarities in imaging results can make it challenging to distinguish NPM from invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Our objective was to identify convenient and objective hematological markers to distinguish NPM from IDC. Methods: We recruited 89 patients with NPM, 88 with IDC, and 86 with fibroadenoma (FA), and compared their laboratory data at the time of admission. LASSO regression, univariate logistic regression, and multivariate logistic regression were used to screen the parameters for construction of diagnostic models. Receiver operating characteristic curves, calibration curves, and decision curves were constructed to evaluate the accuracy of this model. Results: We found significant differences in routine laboratory data between patients with NPM and IDC, and these indicators were candidate biomarkers for distinguishing between the two diseases. Additionally, we evaluated the ability of some classic hematological markers reported in previous studies to differentiate between NPM and IDC, and the results showed that these indicators are not ideal biomarkers. Furthermore, through rigorous LASSO and logistic regression, we selected age, white blood cell count, and thrombin time to construct a differential diagnostic model that exhibited a high level of discrimination, with an area under the curve of 0.912 in the training set and with 0.851 in the validation set. Furthermore, using the same selection method, we constructed a differential diagnostic model for NPM and FA, which also demonstrated good performance with an area under the curve of 0.862 in the training set and with 0.854 in the validation set. Both of these two models achieved AUCs higher than the AUCs of models built using machine learning methods such as random forest, decision tree, and SVM in both the training and validation sets. Conclusion: Certain laboratory parameters on admission differed significantly between the NPM and IDC groups, and the constructed model was designated as a differential diagnostic marker. Our analysis showed that it has acceptable efficiency in distinguishing NPM from IDC and may be employed as an auxiliary diagnostic tool.