Selection of Diagnostic Features on Breast MRI to Differentiate Between Malignant and Benign Lesions Using Computer-aided Diagnosis: Differences in Lesions Presenting As Mass and Non-mass-like Enhancement

Overview

Journal Eur Radiol

Specialty Radiology

Date 2009 Oct 1

PMID 19789878

Citations 52

Authors

Dustin Newell

Ke Nie

Jeon-Hor Chen

Chieh-Chih Hsu

Hon J Yu

Orhan Nalcioglu

Min-Ying Su

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate methods developed for the characterisation of the morphology and enhancement kinetic features of both mass and non-mass lesions, and to determine their diagnostic performance to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions that present as mass versus non-mass types.

Methods: Quantitative analysis of morphological features and enhancement kinetic parameters of breast lesions were used to differentiate among four groups of lesions: 88 malignant (43 mass, 45 non-mass) and 28 benign (19 mass, 9 non-mass). The enhancement kinetics was measured and analysed to obtain transfer constant (K(trans)) and rate constant (k(ep)). For each mass eight shape/margin parameters and 10 enhancement texture features were obtained. For the lesions presenting as nonmass-like enhancement, only the texture parameters were obtained. An artificial neural network (ANN) was used to build the diagnostic model.

Results: For lesions presenting as mass, the four selected morphological features could reach an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.87 in differentiating between malignant and benign lesions. The kinetic parameter (k(ep)) analysed from the hot spot of the tumour reached a comparable AUC of 0.88. The combined morphological and kinetic features improved the AUC to 0.93, with a sensitivity of 0.97 and a specificity of 0.80. For lesions presenting as non-mass-like enhancement, four texture features were selected by the ANN and achieved an AUC of 0.76. The kinetic parameter k(ep) from the hot spot only achieved an AUC of 0.59, with a low added diagnostic value.

Conclusion: The results suggest that the quantitative diagnostic features can be used for developing automated breast CAD (computer-aided diagnosis) for mass lesions to achieve a high diagnostic performance, but more advanced algorithms are needed for diagnosis of lesions presenting as non-mass-like enhancement.

Citing Articles

A hybrid features fusion-based framework for classification of breast micronodules using ultrasonography.

Alhajlah M BMC Med Imaging. 2024; 24(1):253.

PMID: 39304839 PMC: 11415982. DOI: 10.1186/s12880-024-01425-y.

Evaluation of Features in Probably Benign and Malignant Nonmass Enhancement in Breast MRI.

Ahmadinejad N, Azizinik F, Khosravi P, Torabi A, Mohajeri A, Arian A Int J Breast Cancer. 2024; 2024:6661849.

PMID: 38523651 PMC: 10959584. DOI: 10.1155/2024/6661849.

Computerized Segmentation Method for Nonmasses on Breast DCE-MRI Images Using ResUNet++ with Slice Sequence Learning and Cross-Phase Convolution.

Hizukuri A, Nakayama R, Goto M, Sakai K J Imaging Inform Med. 2024; 37(4):1567-1578.

PMID: 38441702 PMC: 11300778. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01053-6.

Radiomics nomogram for predicting axillary lymph node metastasis-a potential method to address the limitation of axilla coverage in cone-beam breast CT: a bi-center retrospective study.

Zhu Y, Ma Y, Zhang Y, Liu A, Wang Y, Zhao M Radiol Med. 2023; 128(12):1472-1482.

PMID: 37857980 DOI: 10.1007/s11547-023-01731-5.

Diagnostic value of Kaiser score combined with breast vascular assessment from breast MRI for the characterization of breast lesions.

Zhou X, Liu L, He S, Yao H, Chen L, Deng C Front Oncol. 2023; 13:1165405.

PMID: 37483510 PMC: 10359820. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1165405.

References

Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G . Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR-mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol. 2001; 11(9):1645-50. DOI: 10.1007/s003300100885. View

Kuhl C . The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007; 244(2):356-78. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2442051620. View

Leinsinger G, Schlossbauer T, Scherr M, Lange O, Reiser M, Wismuller A . Cluster analysis of signal-intensity time course in dynamic breast MRI: does unsupervised vector quantization help to evaluate small mammographic lesions?. Eur Radiol. 2006; 16(5):1138-46. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-005-0053-9. View

Kinkel K, Hylton N . Challenges to interpretation of breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001; 13(6):821-9. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1117. View

Szabo B, Kristoffersen Wiberg M, Bone B, Aspelin P . Application of artificial neural networks to the analysis of dynamic MR imaging features of the breast. Eur Radiol. 2004; 14(7):1217-25. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-004-2280-x. View

Tillman G, Orel S, Schnall M, Schultz D, Tan J, Solin L . Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(16):3413-23. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2002.08.600. View

van den Bosch M, Daniel B, Mariano M, Nowels K, Birdwell R, Fong K . Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of fibrocystic change of the breast. Invest Radiol. 2005; 40(7):436-41. DOI: 10.1097/01.rli.0000167123.26334.c8. View

Bassett L, Dhaliwal S, Eradat J, Khan O, Farria D, Brenner R . National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(2):332-9. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3207. View

Bone B, Pentek Z, Perbeck L, Veress B . Diagnostic accuracy of mammography and contrast-enhanced MR imaging in 238 histologically verified breast lesions. Acta Radiol. 1997; 38(4 Pt 1):489-96. DOI: 10.1080/02841859709174374. View

10.

Liney G, Sreenivas M, Gibbs P, Garcia-Alvarez R, Turnbull L . Breast lesion analysis of shape technique: semiautomated vs. manual morphological description. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006; 23(4):493-8. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20541. View

11.

Raza S, Vallejo M, Chikarmane S, Birdwell R . Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a range of MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(3):689-99. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3779. View

12.

Jansen S, Fan X, Karczmar G, Abe H, Schmidt R, Newstead G . Differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions detected by bilateral dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a sensitivity and specificity study. Magn Reson Med. 2008; 59(4):747-54. PMC: 3121098. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.21530. View

13.

Veltman J, Stoutjesdijk M, Mann R, Huisman H, Barentsz J, Blickman J . Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: the value of pharmacokinetic parameters derived from fast dynamic imaging during initial enhancement in classifying lesions. Eur Radiol. 2008; 18(6):1123-33. PMC: 2373858. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0870-8. View

14.

Orel S, Mendonca M, Reynolds C, SCHNALL M, Solin L, Sullivan D . MR imaging of ductal carcinoma in situ. Radiology. 1997; 202(2):413-20. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.202.2.9015067. View

15.

Schnall M, Blume J, Bluemke D, DeAngelis G, DeBruhl N, Harms S . Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology. 2005; 238(1):42-53. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2381042117. View

16.

Mussurakis S, Buckley D, Horsman A . Dynamic MRI of invasive breast cancer: assessment of three region-of-interest analysis methods. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997; 21(3):431-8. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199705000-00017. View

17.

Chen W, Giger M, Bick U, Newstead G . Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI. Med Phys. 2006; 33(8):2878-87. DOI: 10.1118/1.2210568. View

18.

Jansen S, Fan X, Karczmar G, Abe H, Schmidt R, Giger M . DCEMRI of breast lesions: is kinetic analysis equally effective for both mass and nonmass-like enhancement?. Med Phys. 2008; 35(7):3102-9. PMC: 2673559. DOI: 10.1118/1.2936220. View

19.

Kriege M, Brekelmans C, Boetes C, Besnard P, Zonderland H, Obdeijn I . Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(5):427-37. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa031759. View

20.

Goto M, Ito H, Akazawa K, Kubota T, Kizu O, Yamada K . Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006; 25(1):104-12. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.20812. View