Short-Term Repeatability of in Vivo Cardiac Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Tensor Imaging in Healthy Human Volunteers

Combination of DCE-MRI and NME-DWI via Deep Neural Network for Predicting Breast Cancer Molecular Subtypes

BACKGROUND

To explore whether the combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and nonmono-exponential (NME) model-based diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) via deep neural network (DNN) can improve the prediction of breast cancer molecular subtypes compared to either imaging technique used alone.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study examined 480 breast cancers in 475 patients undergoing DCE-MRI and NME-DWI at 3.0 T. Breast cancers were classified as follows: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 enriched (HER2-enriched), luminal A, luminal B (HER2-), luminal B (HER2+), and triple-negative subtypes. A total of 20% cases were withheld as an independent test dataset, and the remaining cases were used to train DNN with an 80% to 20% training-validation split and 5-fold cross-validation. The diagnostic accuracies of DNN in 5-way subtype classification between the DCE-MRI, NME-DWI, and their combined multiparametric-MRI datasets were compared using analysis of variance with least significant difference posthoc test. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves were calculated to assess the performances of DNN in binary subtype classification between the 3 datasets.

RESULTS

The 5-way classification accuracies of DNN on both DCE-MRI (0.71) and NME-DWI (0.64) were significantly lower (P < .05) than on multiparametric-MRI (0.76), while on DCE-MRI was significantly higher (P < .05) than on NME-DWI. The comparative results of binary classification between the 3 datasets were consistent with the 5-way classification.

CONCLUSION

The combination of DCE-MRI and NME-DWI via DNN achieved a significant improvement in breast cancer molecular subtype prediction compared to either imaging technique used alone. Additionally, DCE-MRI outperformed NME-DWI in differentiating subtypes.

Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Non-Mono-Exponential Model-Based Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for the Prediction of Prognostic Biomarkers and Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer Based on Radiomics

BACKGROUND

Dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI and non-mono-exponential model-based diffusion-weighted imaging (NME-DWI) that does not require contrast agent can both characterize breast cancer. However, which technique is superior remains unclear.

PURPOSE

To compare the performances of DCE-MRI, NME-DWI and their combination as multiparametric MRI (MP-MRI) in the prediction of breast cancer prognostic biomarkers and molecular subtypes based on radiomics.

STUDY TYPE

Prospective.

POPULATION

A total of 477 female patients with 483 breast cancers (5-fold cross-validation: training/validation, 80%/20%).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 3.0 T/DCE-MRI (6 dynamic frames) and NME-DWI (13 b values).

ASSESSMENT

After data preprocessing, high-throughput features were extracted from each tumor volume of interest, and optimal features were selected using recursive feature elimination method. To identify ER+ vs. ER-, PR+ vs. PR-, HER2+ vs. HER2-, Ki-67+ vs. Ki-67-, luminal A/B vs. nonluminal A/B, and triple negative (TN) vs. non-TN, the following models were implemented: random forest, adaptive boosting, support vector machine, linear discriminant analysis, and logistic regression.

STATISTICAL TESTS

Student's t, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were applied on clinical characteristics to confirm whether significant differences exist between different statuses (±) of prognostic biomarkers or molecular subtypes. The model performances were compared between the DCE-MRI, NME-DWI, and MP-MRI datasets using the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the DeLong test. P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

With few exceptions, no significant differences (P = 0.062-0.984) were observed in the AUCs of models for six classification tasks between the DCE-MRI (AUC = 0.62-0.87) and NME-DWI (AUC = 0.62-0.91) datasets, while the model performances on the two imaging datasets were significantly poorer than on the MP-MRI dataset (AUC = 0.68-0.93). Additionally, the random forest and adaptive boosting models (AUC = 0.62-0.93) outperformed other three models (AUC = 0.62-0.90).

DATA CONCLUSION

NME-DWI was comparable with DCE-MRI in predictive performance and could be used as an alternative technique. Besides, MP-MRI demonstrated significantly higher AUCs than either DCE-MRI or NME-DWI.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

2.

TECHNICAL EFFICACY

Stage 2.