Four-Dimensional Machine Learning Radiomics for the Pretreatment Assessment of Breast Cancer Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is typically evaluated through the assessment of tumor size reduction after a few cycles of NAC. In case of treatment ineffectiveness, this results in the patient suffering potentially severe secondary effects without achieving any actual benefit. PURPOSE: To identify patients achieving pathologic complete response (pCR) after NAC by spatio-temporal radiomic analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI images acquired before treatment. STUDY TYPE: Single-center, retrospective. POPULATION: A total of 251 DCE-MRI pretreatment images of breast cancer patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T/3 T, T1-weighted DCE-MRI. ASSESSMENT: Tumor and peritumoral regions were segmented, and 348 radiomic features that quantify texture temporal variation, enhancement kinetics heterogeneity, and morphology were extracted. Based on subsets of features identified through forward selection, machine learning (ML) logistic regression models were trained separately with all images and stratifying on cancer molecular subtype and validated with leave-one-out cross-validation. STATISTICAL TESTS: Feature significance was assessed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Significance of the area under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve (AUC) of the ML models was assessed using the associated 95% confidence interval (CI). Significance threshold was set to 0.05, adjusted with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Nine features related to texture temporal variation and enhancement kinetics heterogeneity were significant in the discrimination of cases achieving pCR vs. non-pCR. The ML models achieved significant AUC of 0.707 (all cancers, n = 251, 59 pCR), 0.824 (luminal A, n = 107, 14 pCR), 0.823 (luminal B, n = 47, 15 pCR), 0.844 (HER2 enriched, n = 25, 11 pCR), 0.803 (triple negative, n = 72, 19 pCR). DATA CONCLUSIONS: Differences in imaging phenotypes were found between complete and noncomplete responders. Furthermore, ML models trained per cancer subtype achieved high performance in classifying pCR vs. non-pCR cases. They may, therefore, have potential to help stratify patients according to the level of response predicted before treatment, pending further validation with larger prospective cohorts. EVIDENCE LEVEL: 4 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 4.

Joint AAPM Task Group 282/EFOMP Working Group Report: Breast dosimetry for standard and contrast-enhanced mammography and breast tomosynthesis.

Currently, there are multiple breast dosimetry estimation methods for mammography and its variants in use throughout the world. This fact alone introduces uncertainty, since it is often impossible to distinguish which model is internally used by a specific imaging system. In addition, all current models are hampered by various limitations, in terms of overly simplified models of the breast and its composition, as well as simplistic models of the imaging system. Many of these simplifications were necessary, for the most part, due to the need to limit the computational cost of obtaining the required dose conversion coefficients decades ago, when these models were first implemented. With the advancements in computational power, and to address most of the known limitations of previous breast dosimetry methods, a new breast dosimetry method, based on new breast models, has been developed, implemented, and tested. This model, developed jointly by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine and the European Federation for Organizations of Medical Physics, is applicable to standard mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, and their contrast-enhanced variants. In addition, it includes models of the breast in both the cranio-caudal and the medio-lateral oblique views. Special emphasis was placed on the breast and system models used being based on evidence, either by analysis of large sets of patient data or by performing measurements on imaging devices from a range of manufacturers. Due to the vast number of dose conversion coefficients resulting from the developed model, and the relative complexity of the calculations needed to apply it, a software program has been made available for download or online use, free of charge, to apply the developed breast dosimetry method. The program is available for download or it can be used directly online. A separate User's Guide is provided with the software.

Diffusion weighted imaging for evaluation of breast lesions: Comparison between high b-value single-shot and routine readout-segmented sequences at 3 T.

PURPOSE: In this study, we compare readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (rs-EPI) Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) to a work-in-progress single-shot EPI with modified Inversion Recovery Background Suppression (ss-EPI-mIRBS) sequence at 3 T using a b-value of 2000 s/mm2 on image quality, lesion visibility and evaluation time. METHOD: From September 2017 to December 2018, 23 women (one case used for training) with known breast cancer were included in this study, after providing signed informed consent. Women were scanned with the conventional rs-EPI sequence and the work-in-progress ss-EPI-mIRBS during the same examination. Four breast radiologists (4-13 years of experience) independently scored both series for overall image quality (1: extremely poor to 9: excellent). All lesions (47 in total, 36 malignant, and 11 benign and high-risk) were evaluated for visibility (1: not visible, 2: visible if location is given, 3: visible) and probability of malignancy (BI-RADS 1 to 5). ADC values were determined by measuring signal intensity in the lesions using dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) images for reference. Evaluation times for all assessments were automatically recorded. Results were analyzed using the visual grading characteristics (VGC) and the resulting area under the curve (AUCVGC) method. Statistical analysis was performed in SPSS, with McNemar tests, and paired t-tests used for comparison. RESULTS: No significant differences were detected between the two sequences in image quality (AUCVGC: 0.398, p = 0.087) and lesion visibility (AUCVGC: 0.534, p = 0.336) scores. Lesion characteristics (e.g benign and high-risk, versus malignant; small (≤10 mm) vs. larger (>10 mm)) did not result in different image quality or lesion visibility between sequences. Sensitivity (rs-EPI: 72.2% vs. ss-EPImIRBS: 78.5%, p = 0.108) and specificity (70.5% vs. 56.8%, p = 0.210, respectively) were comparable. In both sequences the mean ADC value was higher for benign and high-risk lesions than for malignant lesions (ss-EPI-mIRBS: p = 0.022 and rs-EPI: p = 0.055). On average, ss-EPI-mIRBS resulted in decreased overall reading time by 7.7 s/case (p = 0.067); a reduction of 17%. For malignant lesions, average reading time was significantly shorter using ss-EPI-mIRBS compared to rs-EPI (64.0 s/lesion vs. 75.9 s/lesion, respectively, p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Based on this study, the ss-EPI sequence using a b-value of 2000 s/mm2 enables for a mIRBS acquisition with quality and lesion conspicuity that is comparable to conventional rs-EPI, but with a decreased reading time.

Comparison of simultaneous multi-slice single-shot DWI to readout-segmented DWI for evaluation of breast lesions at 3T MRI.

PURPOSE: To compare diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast performed with a conventional readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (rs-EPI) sequence to when using a prototype simultaneous multi-slice single-shot EPI (SMS-ss-EPI) acquisition. METHOD: From September 2017 to December 2018, 26 women with histologically proven breast cancer were scanned with the conventional rs-EPI and the SMS-ss-EPI at 3 T during the same imaging examination. Four breast radiologists (4-13 years of experience) independently scored both acquired series of 25 women (one case was used for training) for overall image quality (1: extremely poor to 9: excellent) and artifacts (1: very disturbing to 5: not present). All lesions (n = 52; 40 malignant, 12 benign) were also evaluated for visibility (1: not visible, 2: visible if location is given, 3: visible). In addition, lesion characteristics were rated, and a BI-RADS score was given. Results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics and the resulting area under the curve (AUCVGC), weighted kappa, McNemar test, and dependent-samples t-test when appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, radiologists significantly preferred the image quality in rs-EPI over that of SMS-ss-EPI (AUCVGC: 0.698, P = 0.002). Infolding and ghosting, and distortion artifacts were significantly less apparent in the rs-EPI (AUCVGC: 0.660, P = 0.022 and AUCVGC: 0.700 P = 0.002, respectively). Lesions were, however, significantly better visible on the SMS-ss-EPI images (AUCVGC: 0.427, P = 0.016). Malignant lesions had significantly higher visibility with SMS-ss-EPI (P = 0.035). Sensitivity and specificity were comparable between both sequences (P = 0.760 and P = 0.549, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perceived lower image quality and the increased presence of artifacts in the SMS-ss-EPI sequence, malignant lesions are better visualized using this sequence.

A systematic review on the use of the breast lesion excision system in breast disease.

PURPOSE: To outline the current status of and provide insight into possible future research on the breast lesion excision system (BLES) as a diagnostic and therapeutic device. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases to identify relevant studies published between January 2002 and April 2018. Studies were considered eligible for inclusion if they evaluated the diagnostic or therapeutic accuracy or safety of BLES. RESULTS: Ultimately, 17 articles were included. The reported underestimation rates of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) ranged from 0 to 14.3% and from 0 to 22.2%, respectively. Complete excision rates for invasive ductal carcinoma and DCIS ranged from 5.3 to 76.3%. Bleeding was the most frequently reported complication (0-11.8%). Device-related complications may arise, with an empty basket being the most common (0.6-3.6%). Thermal damage of the specimen, caused by the use of a radiofrequency cutting wire, was reported in eight of the included studies. Most thermal artifacts were reported as superficial and small (0.1-1.9 mm). CONCLUSIONS: The BLES, an automated, image-guided, single-pass biopsy system for breast lesions using radiofrequency is designed to excise and retrieve an intact tissue specimen. It is an efficient and safe breast biopsy method with acceptable complication rates, which may be used as an alternative to vacuum-assisted biopsies. The variable rate of complete excision raises questions about the possibility to use BLES as a therapeutic device for the excision of small lesions. Further research should focus on this aspect of BLES.