Work

CEM and MR Radiomics-based Biomarkers to Predict Immunohistochemistry Breast Cancer Subtypes: A comparative study

Year: 2022

Type: preprint

Abstract: Purpose Accurately predicting the clinical breast cancer subtypes could be extremely helpful for radiologists, pathologists, surgeons, and clinicians and inform future treatment prediction algorithms. Therefore, we evaluate and compare the accuracy of radiomic features extracted from contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to make predictions to subtypes of breast cancer. Methods This HIPAA-compliant prospective single institution study was approved by the local institutional review board with written informed consent. Women with breast tumors 2 cm or larger underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and/or CEM for surgical staging. Semi-manual regions of interest were drawn by radiologist using Cancer Imaging Phenomics Toolkit (CaPTk). Radiomic features were obtained using PyRadiomics and MR- and CEM- based classification models were built on a low-dimensional representation of the features obtained via kernel principal component analysis. We subscribed to an ensemble tree-based learning approach called extremely randomized trees (ERT) to predict cancer subtypes captured via immunohistochemistry markers. Results For MRI analysis, 124 women with newly diagnosed breast cancer were included in the analysis comprising 49 HR+HER2-, 37 HR+HER2+, 11 HR-HER2+, and 27 HR-HER2- cases. For CEM analysis, models were built using data from 170 female patients including 74 HR+HER2-, 41 HR+HER2+, 14 HR-HER2+, and 43 HR-HER2-. CEM based model resulted in accuracies of 55%, 72%, 88%, and 71% respectively for HR+HER2-, HR+HER2+, HR-HER2+, and HR-HER2- whereas MRI based model alone led to accuracies of 54%, 62%, 89%, and 76% respectively for HR+HER2-, HR+HER2+, HR-HER2+, and HR-HER2-. Conclusions Radiomic features extracted from CEM and MR were strong predictors of breast cancer subtypes with CEM-based radiomic features performing slightly better, though not statistically significantly better (p = 0.82), than its MRI counterpart.

Source: Research Square

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2232518/v1