Purpose To compare annotation segmentation approaches and to assess the value of radiomics analysis applied to diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for evaluation of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtyping. Procedures In this IRB-approved HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, 91 patients with treatment-naïve breast malignancies proven by image-guided breast biopsy, (luminal A, n = 49; luminal B, n = 8; human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER2]-enriched, n = 11; triple negative [TN], n = 23) underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast at 3 T with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, T2-weighted and DW imaging. Lesions were manually segmented on high b-value DW images and segmentation ROIS were propagated to apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. In addition in a subgroup (n = 79) where lesions were discernable on ADC maps alone, these were also directly segmented there. To derive radiomics signatures, the following features were extracted and analyzed: first-order histogram (HIS), co-occurrence matrix (COM), run-length matrix (RLM), absolute gradient, autoregressive model (ARM), discrete Haar wavelet transform (WAV), and lesion geometry. Fisher, probability of error and average correlation, and mutual information coefficients were used for feature selection. Linear discriminant analysis followed by k-nearest neighbor classification with leave-one-out cross-validation was applied for pairwise differentiation of receptor status and molecular subtyping. Histopathologic results were considered the gold standard. Results For lesion that were segmented on DWI and segmentation ROIs were propagated to ADC maps the following classification accuracies > 90% were obtained: luminal B vs. HER2-enriched, 94.7 % (based on COM features); luminal B vs. others, 92.3 % (COM, HIS); and HER2-enriched vs. others, 90.1 % (RLM, COM). For lesions that were segmented directly on ADC maps, better results were achieved yielding the following classification accuracies: luminal B vs. HER2-enriched, 100 % (COM, WAV); luminal A vs. luminal B, 91.5 % (COM, WAV); and luminal B vs. others, 91.1 % (WAV, ARM, COM). Conclusions Radiomic signatures from DWI with ADC mapping allows evaluation of breast cancer receptor status and molecular subtyping with high diagnostic accuracy. Better classification accuracies were obtained when breast tumor segmentations could be performed on ADC maps.

“Just Accepted” papers have undergone full peer review and have been accepted for publication in Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. This article will undergo copyediting, layout, and proof review ...

To investigate the value of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) compared to full-field digital mammography (FFDM) in screening breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery (BCS), this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, institutional review board-approved retrospective, single-institution study included 971 CEM exams in 541 asymptomatic patients treated with BCS who underwent screening CEM between January 2013 and November 2018. Histopathology, or at least a one-year follow-up, was used as the standard of reference. Twenty-one of 541 patients (3.9%) were diagnosed with ipsi- or contralateral breast cancer: six (28.6%) cancers were seen with low-energy images (equivalent to FFDM), an additional nine (42.9%) cancers were detected only on iodine (contrast-enhanced) images, and six interval cancers were identified within 365 days of a negative screening CEM. Of the 10 ipsilateral cancers detected on CEM, four were detected on low-energy images (40%). Of the five contralateral cancers detected on CEM, two were detected on low-energy images (40%). Overall, the cancer detection rate (CDR) for CEM was 15.4/1000 (15/971), and the positive predictive value (PPV3) of the biopsies performed was 42.9% (15/35). For findings seen on low-energy images, with or without contrast, the CDR was 6.2/1000 (6/971), and the PPV3 of the biopsies performed was 37.5% (6/16). In the post-BCS screening setting, CEM has a higher CDR than FFDM.

The aim of our intra-individual comparison study was to investigate and compare the potential of radiomics analysis of contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the breast for the non-invasive assessment of tumor invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade in patients with primary breast cancer. This retrospective study included 48 female patients with 49 biopsy-proven breast cancers who underwent pretreatment breast CEM and MRI. Radiomics analysis was performed by using MaZda software. Radiomics parameters were correlated with tumor histology (invasive vs. non-invasive), hormonal status (HR+ vs. HR−), and grading (low grade G1 + G2 vs. high grade G3). CEM radiomics analysis yielded classification accuracies of up to 92% for invasive vs. non-invasive breast cancers, 95.6% for HR+ vs. HR− breast cancers, and 77.8% for G1 + G2 vs. G3 invasive cancers. MRI radiomics analysis yielded classification accuracies of up to 90% for invasive vs. non-invasive breast cancers, 82.6% for HR+ vs. HR− breast cancers, and 77.8% for G1+G2 vs. G3 cancers. Preliminary results indicate a potential of both radiomics analysis of DCE-MRI and CEM for non-invasive assessment of tumor-invasiveness, hormone receptor status, and tumor grade. CEM may serve as an alternative to MRI if MRI is not available or contraindicated.