scholarly journals Apparent Diffusion Coefficient-Based Convolutional Neural Network Model Can Be Better Than Sole Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Improve the Differentiation of Invasive Breast Cancer From Breast Ductal Carcinoma In Situ

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haolin Yin ◽  
Yu Jiang ◽  
Zihan Xu ◽  
Wenjun Huang ◽  
Tianwu Chen ◽  
...  

Background and PurposeBreast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has no metastatic potential, and has better clinical outcomes compared with invasive breast cancer (IBC). Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) can adaptively extract features and may achieve higher efficiency in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)-based tumor invasion assessment. This study aimed to determine the feasibility of constructing an ADC-based CNN model to discriminate DCIS from IBC.MethodsThe study retrospectively enrolled 700 patients with primary breast cancer between March 2006 and June 2019 from our hospital, and randomly selected 560 patients as the training and validation sets (ratio of 3 to 1), and 140 patients as the internal test set. An independent external test set of 102 patients during July 2019 and May 2021 from a different scanner of our hospital was selected as the primary cohort using the same criteria. In each set, the status of tumor invasion was confirmed by pathologic examination. The CNN model was constructed to discriminate DCIS from IBC using the training and validation sets. The CNN model was evaluated using the internal and external tests, and compared with the discriminating performance using the mean ADC. The area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated to evaluate the performance of the previous model.ResultsThe AUCs of the ADC-based CNN model using the internal and external test sets were larger than those of the mean ADC (AUC: 0.977 vs. 0.866, P = 0.001; and 0.926 vs. 0.845, P = 0.096, respectively). Regarding the internal test set and external test set, the ADC-based CNN model yielded sensitivities of 0.893 and 0.873, specificities of 0.929 and 0.894, and accuracies of 0.907 and 0.902, respectively. Regarding the two test sets, the mean ADC showed sensitivities of 0.845 and 0.818, specificities of 0.821 and 0.829, and accuracies of 0.836 and 0.824, respectively. Using the ADC-based CNN model, the prediction only takes approximately one second for a single lesion.ConclusionThe ADC-based CNN model can improve the differentiation of IBC from DCIS with higher accuracy and less time.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Corrado Tagliati ◽  
Giuseppe Lanni ◽  
Federico Cerimele ◽  
Antonietta Di Martino ◽  
Valentina Calamita ◽  
...  

We present a case of ductal carcinoma in situ within a fibroadenoma. Breast cancer arising within fibroadenoma incidence ranges from 0.125% to 0.02%, and ductal carcinoma in situ is not the most frequent malignancy that can be found within a fibroadenoma. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging showed an oval mass with circumscribed margins and dark internal septations, suspicious for fibroadenoma. According to European Society of Breast Radiology diffusion-weighted imaging consensus, mean apparent diffusion coefficient value obtained by drawing a small region of interest on the lesion apparent diffusion coefficient map showed a low diffusion level. Therefore, ductal carcinoma in situ within a fibroadenoma was diagnosed at final pathology after surgical excision.


Radiology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 260 (2) ◽  
pp. 364-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mami Iima ◽  
Denis Le Bihan ◽  
Ryosuke Okumura ◽  
Tomohisa Okada ◽  
Koji Fujimoto ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 58 (11) ◽  
pp. 1294-1302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ga Eun Park ◽  
Sung Hun Kim ◽  
Eun Jeong Kim ◽  
Bong Joo Kang ◽  
Mi Sun Park

Background Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease. Recent studies showed that apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values have various association with tumor aggressiveness and prognosis. Purpose To evaluate the value of histogram analysis of ADC values obtained from the whole tumor volume in invasive ductal cancer (IDC) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Material and Methods This retrospective study included 201 patients with confirmed DCIS (n = 37) and IDC (n = 164). The IDC group was divided into two groups based on the presence of a DCIS component: IDC–DCIS (n = 76) and pure IDC (n = 88). All patients underwent preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with diffusion-weighted images at 3.0 T. Histogram parameters of cumulative ADC values, skewness, and kurtosis were calculated and statistically analyzed. Results The differences between DCIS, IDC–DCIS, and pure IDC were significant in all percentiles of ADC values, in descending order of DCIS, IDC–DCIS, and pure IDC. IDC showed significantly lower ADC values than DCIS, and ADC50 was the best indicator for discriminating IDC from DCIS, with a threshold of 1.185 × 10–3 mm2/s (sensitivity of 82.9%, specificity of 75.7%). However, multivariate analysis of obtained ADC values showed no significant differences between DCIS, IDC–DCIS, and pure IDC ( P > 0.05). Conclusion Volume-based ADC values showed association with heterogeneity of breast cancer. However, there was no additional diagnostic performance in histogram analysis for differentiating between DCIS, IDC–DCIS, and pure IDC.


2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 1483-1488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heba Hussein ◽  
Caroline Chung ◽  
Hadas Moshonov ◽  
Naomi Miller ◽  
Supriya R. Kulkarni ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Yu Wang ◽  
Jiantao Wang ◽  
Haiping Wang ◽  
Xinyu Yang ◽  
Liming Chang ◽  
...  

Objective: Accurate assessment of breast tumor size preoperatively is important for the initial decision-making in surgical approach. Therefore, we aimed to compare efficacy of mammography and ultrasonography in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of breast cancer. Methods: Preoperative mammography and ultrasonography were performed on 104 women with DCIS of breast cancer. We compared the accuracy of each of the imaging modalities with pathological size by Pearson correlation. For each modality, it was considered concordant if the difference between imaging assessment and pathological measurement is less than 0.5cm. Results: At pathological examination tumor size ranged from 0.4cm to 7.2cm in largest diameter. For mammographically determined size versus pathological size, correlation coefficient of r was 0.786 and for ultrasonography it was 0.651. Grouped by breast composition, in almost entirely fatty and scattered areas of fibroglandular dense breast, correlation coefficient of r was 0.790 for mammography and 0.678 for ultrasonography; in heterogeneously dense and extremely dense breast, correlation coefficient of r was 0.770 for mammography and 0.548 for ultrasonography. In microcalcification positive group, coeffient of r was 0.772 for mammography and 0.570 for ultrasonography. In microcalcification negative group, coeffient of r was 0.806 for mammography and 0.783 for ultrasonography. Conclusion: Mammography was more accurate than ultrasonography in measuring the largest cancer diameter in DCIS of breast cancer. The correlation coefficient improved in the group of almost entirely fatty/ scattered areas of fibroglandular dense breast or in microcalcification negative group.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document