A multicentric study of radiomics and artificial intelligence analysis on contrast-enhanced mammography to identify different histotypes of breast cancer

• Published in: Radiologia medica 2024-06, Vol.129 (6), p.864-878
• Main Authors: Petrillo, Antonella, Fusco, Roberta, Petrosino, Teresa, Vallone, Paolo, Granata, Vincenza, Rubulotta, Maria Rosaria, Pariante, Paolo, Raiano, Nicola, Scognamiglio, Giosuè, Fanizzi, Annarita, Massafra, Raffaella, Lafranceschina, Miria, La Forgia, Daniele, Greco, Laura, Ferranti, Francesca Romana, De Soccio, Valeria, Vidiri, Antonello, Botta, Francesca, Dominelli, Valeria, Cassano, Enrico, Sorgente, Eugenio, Pecori, Biagio, Cerciello, Vincenzo, Boldrini, Luca
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Adult; Aged; Artificial Intelligence; Breast cancer; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Breast Neoplasms - pathology; Breast Radiology; Classification; Contrast Media; Cranium; Decision trees; Diagnostic Radiology; Female; Growth factors; Humans; Image contrast; Image enhancement; Imaging; Interventional Radiology; Italy; Lesions; Mammography; Mammography - methods; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Multivariate analysis; Neoplasm Grading; Neuroradiology; Performance evaluation; Radiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods; Radiology; Radiomics; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors; Regression models; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasound
• ISSN: 1826-6983; 0033-8362; 1826-6983
• DOI: 10.1007/s11547-024-01817-8

Objective To evaluate the performance of radiomic analysis on contrast-enhanced mammography images to identify different histotypes of breast cancer mainly in order to predict grading, to identify hormone receptors, to discriminate human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and to identify luminal histotype of the breast cancer. Methods From four Italian centers were recruited 180 malignant lesions and 68 benign lesions. However, only the malignant lesions were considered for the analysis. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced mammography in cranium caudal (CC) and medium lateral oblique (MLO) view. Considering histological findings as the ground truth, four outcomes were considered: (1) G1 + G2 vs. G3; (2) HER2 + vs. HER2 − ; (3) HR + vs. HR − ; and (4) non-luminal vs. luminal A or HR + /HER2−  and luminal B or HR + /HER2 + . For multivariate analysis feature selection, balancing techniques and patter recognition approaches were considered. Results The univariate findings showed that the diagnostic performance is low for each outcome, while the results of the multivariate analysis showed that better performances can be obtained. In the HER2 + detection, the best performance (73% of accuracy and AUC = 0.77) was obtained using a linear regression model (LRM) with 12 features extracted by MLO view. In the HR + detection, the best performance (77% of accuracy and AUC = 0.80) was obtained using a LRM with 14 features extracted by MLO view. In grading classification, the best performance was obtained by a decision tree trained with three predictors extracted by MLO view reaching an accuracy of 82% on validation set. In the luminal versus non-luminal histotype classification, the best performance was obtained by a bagged tree trained with 15 predictors extracted by CC view reaching an accuracy of 94% on validation set. Conclusions The results suggest that radiomics analysis can be effectively applied to design a tool to support physician decision making in breast cancer classification. In particular, the classification of luminal versus non-luminal histotypes can be performed with high accuracy.