NUK - logo
E-resources
Peer reviewed Open access
  • Applying a new quantitative...
    Aghaei, Faranak; Tan, Maxine; Hollingsworth, Alan B.; Zheng, Bin

    Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, November 2016, Volume: 44, Issue: 5
    Journal Article

    Purpose To develop a new quantitative global kinetic breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features analysis scheme and assess its feasibility to assess tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods A dataset involving breast MR images acquired from 151 cancer patients before neoadjuvant chemotherapy was used. Among them, 63 patients had complete response (CR) and 88 had partial response (PR) to chemotherapy based on the RECIST criterion. A computer‐aided detection (CAD) scheme was applied to segment breast region depicted on the breast MR images and computed a total of 10 kinetic image features to represent parenchyma enhancement either from the entire two breasts or the bilateral asymmetry between the two breasts. To classify between CR and PR cases, we tested an attribution selected classifier that integrates with an artificial neural network and a Wrapper Subset Evaluator. The classifier was trained and tested using a leave‐one‐case‐out (LOCO)‐based cross‐validation method. The area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was computed to assess classifier performance. Results From the pool of initial 10 features, four features were selected by more than 90% times in the LOCO cross‐validation iterations. Among them, three represent the bilateral asymmetry of kinetic features between two breasts. Using the classifier yielded AUC = 0.83 ± 0.04, which is significantly higher than using each individual feature to classify between CR and PR cases (P < 0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrated that quantitative analysis of global kinetic features computed from breast MRI‐acquired prechemotherapy has potential to generate a useful clinical marker that is associated with tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1099–1106.