Association between Radiological and First-Order Statistical Features of the Mammogram, and the Tumor Phenotype in Breast Cancer Patients Statistical features of mammogram and breast cancer
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is among the most prevalent cancers which can effectively be screened by mammography. The spatial distribution of grey levels of the mammogram known as first-order statistical features (FOSFs) contain higher dimensional data which describe the breast composition. We aim to test these basic measures to differentiate density categories in breast cancer patients, and use them as covariates to investigate the relationship between radiologic and pathologic features of the tumor.
Methods: Data from Eighty-five breast cancer subjects, their BI-RADS breast density category (a to d), percentage density (PD), and FOSFs of the mammogram including median, mean, interquartile range, kurtosis, maximum, minimum, standard deviation, skewness, and energy, were extracted. The tumor grade and the percentage of Ki67, ER, PR, and Her2 status were recorded. A linear discriminant analysis, and a support vector machine (SVM) were used to discriminate each density category from others. Then, the relation between variables were investigated using ANCOVA and regression analysis.
Results: Density categories a and d were classified by SVM with high accuracy. The key feature of a and d were interquartile range and maximum intensities respectively. Reported tumor margins were related to Her2 overexpression and PR positivity. Spiculated tumor margin predicted percentage of PR expression, with a cumulative odds ratio of 7.85 (CI 2.5- 24.78), when adjusted for age, area of breast, density, and FOSFs, (p=0.0004).
Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that FOSFs can be incorporated in computer-aided systems to adjust for differences in breast composition and to refine risk profiles.
Full text article
References
Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration, Fitzmaurice C, Akinyemiju TF, Al Lami FH, Alam T, Alizadeh-Navaei R, et al. Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:1553–1568.
Brentnall AR, Cuzick J, Buist DSM, et al. Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density. JAMA Oncol 2018;4:e180174.
Kerlikowske K, Ma L, Scott CG, et al. Combining quantitative and qualitative breast density measures to assess breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res 2017;19:97.
Destounis SV, Santacroce A, Arieno A. Update on breast density, risk estimation, and supplemental screening. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2020;214:296-305.
Ghosh K, Brandt KR, Sellers TA, et al. Association of mammographic density with the pathology of subsequent breast cancer among postmenopausal women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:872-879.
Keller BM, Chen J, Daye D, et al. Preliminary evaluation of the publicly available Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software tool: comparison of fully automated area and volumetric density measures in a case–control study with digital mammography. Breast Cancer Res 2015;17:117.
Boyd N, Berman H, Zhu J, et al. The origins of breast cancer associated with mammographic density: a testable biological hypothesis. Breast Cancer Res 2018;20:17.
Evans DGR, Harkness EF, Brentnall AR, et al. Breast cancer pathology and stage are better predicted by risk stratification models that include mammographic density and common genetic variants. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019;176:141–148.
van der Waal D, Verbeek ALM, Broeders MJM. Breast density and breast cancer-specific survival by detection mode. BMC Cancer 2018;18:386.
Edwards BL, Atkins KA, Stukenborg GJ, et al. The Association of Mammographic Density and Molecular Breast Cancer Subtype. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26:1487–1492.
Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, Lee V, Hopper JL, Yaffe MJ, Paterson AD. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. lancet oncol 2005;6:798-808.
Sickles EA, D’ Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Appleton CM, Berg WA, Burnside ES, ACR BIRADS® Atlas, Breast imaging reporting and data system, Reston, VA: Amercan College of Radiology 2013: 39-48.
Liu J, Lei J, Ou Y, Zhao Y, Tuo X, Zhang B, Shen M. Mammography diagnosis of breast cancer screening through machine learning: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical and Experimental Medicine. 2023 Oct;23(6):2341-56.
Kayode AA, Akande NO, Adegun AA, Adebiyi MO. An automated mammogram classification system using modified support vector machine. Medical Devices: Evidence and Research. 2019 Aug 12:275-84.
Pinker K. Beyond breast density: radiomic phenotypes enhance assessment of breast cancer risk. Radiology 2019;290:50.
Gastounioti A, Conant EF, Kontos D. Beyond breast density: a review on the advancing role of parenchymal texture analysis in breast cancer risk assessment. Breast Cancer Res 2016;18:1-2.
Keller BM, Chen J, Conant EF, et al. Breast density and parenchymal texture measures as potential risk factors for estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng
;27;9035:9035
Kontos D, Winham SJ, Oustimov A, Pantalone L, Hsieh MK, Gastounioti A, Whaley DH, Hruska CB, Kerlikowske K, Brandt K, Conant EF. Radiomic phenotypes of mammographic parenchymal complexity: toward augmenting breast density in breast cancer risk assessment. Radiology. 2019;290:41-9.
Heine JJ, Cao K, Rollison DE. Calibrated measures for breast density estimation. Acad Radiol 2011;18:547-555.
Monticciolo DL, Newell MS, Moy L, Lee CS, Destounis SV. Breast cancer screening for women at higher-than-average risk: updated recommendations from the ACR. Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2023 Sep 1;20(9):902-14.
Bell RJ. Mammographic density and breast cancer screening. Climacteric 2020;23:460-465.
Gastounioti A, Kasi CD, Scott CG, Brandt KR, Jensen MR, Hruska CB, Wu FF, Norman AD, Conant EF, Winham SJ, Kerlikowske K. Evaluation of LIBRA software for fully automated mammographic density assessment in breast cancer risk prediction. Radiology. 2020;296:24-31.
Conroy SM, Pagano I, Kolonel LN, et al. Mammographic density and hormone receptor expression in breast cancer: The Multiethnic Cohort Study. Cancer Epidemiol 2011;35:448–452.
Nazari SS, Mukherjee P. An overview of mammographic density and its association with breast cancer. Breast cancer 2018;25:259-67.
Kwan ML, Kushi LH, Weltzien E, Maring B, Kutner SE, Fulton RS, Lee MM, Ambrosone CB, Caan BJ. Epidemiology of breast cancer subtypes in two prospective cohort studies of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Research. 2009 Jun;11:1-3.
Cronin KA, Harlan LC, Dodd KW, Abrams JS, Ballard-Barbash R. Population-based estimate of the prevalence of HER-2 positive breast cancer tumors for early stage patients in the US. Cancer investigation. 2010 Oct 1;28(9):963-8.
Sturesdotter L, Sandsveden M, Johnson K, et al. Mammographic tumour appearance is related to clinicopathological factors and surrogate molecular breast cancer subtype. Sci Rep 2020;10:20814.
Kojima Y, Tsunoda H. Mammography and ultrasound features of triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 2011;18:146-151.
Tamaki K, Ishida T, Miyashita M, et al. Correlation between mammographic findings and corresponding histopathology: potential predictors for biological characteristics of breast diseases. Cancer Sci 2011;102:2179-2185.
Paradiso A, Mangia A, Barletta A, et al. Mammography and morphobiologic characteristics of human breast cancer. Tumori 1993;79:422-426.
Jiang L, Ma T, Moran MS, et al. Mammographic features are associated with clinicopathological characteristics in invasive breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2011;31:2327-2334.
Liu S, Wu XD, Xu WJ, et al. Is there a correlation between the presence of a spiculated mass on mammogram and luminal a subtype breast cancer? Korean J Radiol 2016;17:846-852.
Johnson KS, Conant EF, Soo MS. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: a review for breast radiologists. Journal of Breast Imaging. 2021 Jan 1;3(1):12-24.
Purdie CA, Quinlan P, Jordan LB, Ashfield A, Ogston S, Dewar JA, Thompson AM. Progesterone receptor expression is an independent prognostic variable in early breast cancer: a population-based study. Br J cancer 2014;110:565-72.
McFall T, McKnight B, Rosati R, Kim S, Huang Y, Viola-Villegas N, Ratnam M. Progesterone receptor A promotes invasiveness and metastasis of luminal breast cancer by suppressing regulation of critical microRNAs by estrogen. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2018;293:1163-77.
Lamb CA, Fabris VT, Jacobsen BM, Molinolo A, Lanari C. Biological and clinical impact of imbalanced progesterone receptor isoform ratios in breast cancer. Endoc relat cancer 2018;25:R605-24.
Warner ET, Rice MS, Zeleznik OA, et al. Automated percent mammographic density, mammographic texture variation, and risk of breast cancer: a nested case-control study. NPJ Breast Cancer 2021;7:68.
Sansone M, Fusco R, Grassi F, Gatta G, Belfiore MP, Angelone F, Ricciardi C, Ponsiglione AM, Amato F, Galdiero R, Grassi R. Machine learning approaches with textural features to calculate breast density on mammography. Current Oncology. 2023 Jan 7;30(1):839-53.
Li S, Yang X, Zhang Y, Fan L, Zhang F, Chen L, Zhou Y, Chen X, Jiang J. Assessment accuracy of core needle biopsy for hormone receptors in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast cancer res treat 2012;135:325-34
Authors
Copyright (c) 2024 Archives of Breast Cancer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright©. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits copy and redistribution of the material in any medium or format or adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, except for commercial purposes.