Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Nov;42(11):6520-8.
doi: 10.1118/1.4933198.

Computer-aided breast MR image feature analysis for prediction of tumor response to chemotherapy

Affiliations

Computer-aided breast MR image feature analysis for prediction of tumor response to chemotherapy

Faranak Aghaei et al. Med Phys. 2015 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: To identify a new clinical marker based on quantitative kinetic image features analysis and assess its feasibility to predict tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods: The authors assembled a dataset involving breast MR images acquired from 68 cancer patients before undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Among them, 25 patients had complete response (CR) and 43 had partial and nonresponse (NR) to chemotherapy based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. The authors developed a computer-aided detection scheme to segment breast areas and tumors depicted on the breast MR images and computed a total of 39 kinetic image features from both tumor and background parenchymal enhancement regions. The authors then applied and tested two approaches to classify between CR and NR cases. The first one analyzed each individual feature and applied a simple feature fusion method that combines classification results from multiple features. The second approach tested an attribute selected classifier that integrates an artificial neural network (ANN) with a wrapper subset evaluator, which was optimized using a leave-one-case-out validation method.

Results: In the pool of 39 features, 10 yielded relatively higher classification performance with the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) ranging from 0.61 to 0.78 to classify between CR and NR cases. Using a feature fusion method, the maximum AUC=0.85±0.05. Using the ANN-based classifier, AUC value significantly increased to 0.96±0.03 (p<0.01).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that quantitative analysis of kinetic image features computed from breast MR images acquired prechemotherapy has potential to generate a useful clinical marker in predicting tumor response to chemotherapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.
An example showing two matched breast MRI slices acquired from before (a) and after (b) neoadjuvant chemotherapy of one patient assigned in the NR group. A matched malignant tumor is marked by a red arrow in two image slices.
FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.
Illustration of chest wall detection and breast region segmentation. In this figure, the detected middle point A between the left and right breasts and two fitted oblique lines (B and C) are marked in (a), and the final segmented breast region, which is used to compute the BPE features, is shown in (b).
FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.
An example of two breast tumors including (a) a tumor without necrotic area and (b) a tumor with necrotic area inside.
FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.
The result of the detection process for tumor, enhanced, and dead area shown as image slices: (a) tumor detection, (b) enhanced area detection, and (c) necrotic area detection with their corresponding binary images (d)–(f), respectively.
FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.
Two ROC curves generated using the classification scores of the ANN-based classifier (solid curve) and feature fusion method (dashed curve).

References

    1. Siegel R. L., Miller K. D., and Jemal A., “Cancer statistics, 2015,” Ca-Cancer J. Clin. 65, 5–29 (2015).10.3322/caac.21254 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tabar L., Vitak B., and Chen H. H., “Beyond randomized controlled trials: Organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality,” Cancer 91, 1724–1731 (2001).10.1002/1097-0142(20010501)91:9¡1724::aid-cncr1190¿3.0.co;2-v - DOI - PubMed
    1. Smith R. A. et al., “Cancer screening in the United States, 2015: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening,” Ca-Cancer J. Clin. 65, 30–54 (2015).10.3322/caac.21261 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fenton J. J., Wheeler J., and Carney P. A., “Reality check: Perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers,” Am. J. Roentgenol. 187, 42–46 (2006).10.2214/AJR.05.0455 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Berlin L. and Hall F. M., “More mammography muddle: Emotions, politics, science, costs and polarization,” Radiology 255, 311–316 (2010).10.1148/radiol.10100056 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources