CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 175Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingMRI in cancer diagnosisBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Longitudinal MRI-based fusion novel model predicts pathological complete response in breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a multicenter, retrospective study

Open access
Huang, YuHong, Zhu, Teng, Zhang, XiaoLing, Li, Wei, Zheng, XingXing, Cheng, MinYi, Ji, Fei, Zhang, LiuLu, Yang, CiQiu, Wu, ZhiYong, Ye, GuoLin, Lin, Ying, Wang, Kun·2023·eClinicalMedicine
DOI 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101899PMC PMC10050775
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Accurate identification of pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is essential for determining appropriate surgery strategy and guiding resection extent in breast cancer. However, a non-invasive tool to predict pCR accurately is lacking. Our study aims to develop ensemble learning models using longitudinal multiparametric MRI to predict pCR in breast cancer. Methods: From July 2015 to December 2021, we collected pre-NAC and post-NAC multiparametric MRI sequences per patient. We then extracted 14,676 radiomics and 4096 deep learning features and calculated additional delta-value features. In the primary cohort (n = 409), the inter-class correlation coefficient test, U-test, Boruta and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression were used to select the most significant features for each subtype of breast cancer. Five machine learning classifiers were then developed to predict pCR accurately for each subtype. The ensemble learning strategy was used to integrate the single-modality models. The diagnostic performances of models were evaluated in the three external cohorts (n = 343, 170 and 340, respectively). Findings: A total of 1262 patients with breast cancer from four centers were enrolled in this study, and pCR rates were 10.6% (52/491), 54.3% (323/595) and 37.5% (66/176) in HR+/HER2-, HER2+ and TNBC subtype, respectively. Finally, 20, 15 and 13 features were selected to construct the machine learning models in HR+/HER2-, HER2+ and TNBC subtypes, respectively. The multi-Layer Perception (MLP) yields the best diagnostic performances in all subtypes. For the three subtypes, the stacking model integrating pre-, post- and delta-models yielded the highest AUCs of 0.959, 0.974 and 0.958 in the primary cohort, and AUCs of 0.882-0.908, 0.896-0.929 and 0.837-0.901 in the external validation cohorts, respectively. The stacking model had accuracies of 85.0%-88.9%, sensitivities of 80.0%-86.3%, and specificities of 87.4%-91.5% in the external validation cohorts. Interpretation: Our study established a novel tool to predict the responses of breast cancer to NAC and achieve excellent performance. The models could help to determine post-NAC surgery strategy for breast cancer. Funding: This study is supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82171898, 82103093), the Deng Feng project of high-level hospital construction (DFJHBF202109), the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation (grant number, 2020A1515010346, 2022A1515012277), the Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou City (202002030236), the Beijing Medical Award Foundation (YXJL-2020-0941-0758), and the Beijing Science and Technology Innovation Medical Development Foundation (KC2022-ZZ-0091-5). Funding sources were not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101899

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 The study design and workflow of longitudinal MRI-based radiomics deep learning in predicting pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Fig. 1 The study design and workflow of longitudinal MRI-based radiomics deep learning in predicting pCR to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 The Spearman correlation coefficient network diagrams showed the relations between each pair of selected features in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (c) and TNBC subtype (e). the Spearman correlation coefficient heat maps showed the relations between selected features and clinical characteristics in HR+/HER2− (b), HER2+ (d) and TNBC subtype (f). Each feature was independent predictor as there was no correlation coefficient >0.8 in each subtype. And all the imaging-derived features were independent from clinical characteristics as no correlation coefficient >0.8 was observed in each subtype.
Fig. 2 The Spearman correlation coefficient network diagrams showed the relations between each pair of selected features in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (c) and TNBC subtype (e). the Spearman correlation coefficient heat maps showed the relations between selected features and clinical characteristics in HR+/HER2− (b), HER2+ (d) and TNBC subtype (f). Each feature was independent predictor as there was no correlation coefficient >0.8 in each subtype. And all the imaging-derived features were independent from clinical characteristics as no correlation coefficient >0.8 was observed in each subtype.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 The horizontal bar charts showed the feature importance of the selected radiomics and deep learning features in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (b) and TNBC subtype (c). In the three random forest models, all the Shapley values of selected features were higher than the corresponding max shadow value in each subtype. It indicated that all the features contributed to develop the models.
Fig. 3 The horizontal bar charts showed the feature importance of the selected radiomics and deep learning features in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (b) and TNBC subtype (c). In the three random forest models, all the Shapley values of selected features were higher than the corresponding max shadow value in each subtype. It indicated that all the features contributed to develop the models.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Predictive performances of the different models in the primary and external validation cohorts (a–l). Plots show the ROC curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (b) and TNBC subtype (c), respectively, in the primary cohort. Plots show the ROC curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (d), HER2+ (e) and TNBC subtype (f), respectively, in the validation cohort 1. Plots show the ROC curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (g), HER2+ (h) and TNBC subtype (i), respectively, in the validation cohort 2. Plots show the ROC curves of the stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (j), HER2+ (k) and TNBC subtype (l), respectively, in the validation cohort 3.
Fig. 4 Predictive performances of the different models in the primary and external validation cohorts (a–l). Plots show the ROC curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (b) and TNBC subtype (c), respectively, in the primary cohort. Plots show the ROC curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (d), HER2+ (e) and TNBC subtype (f), respectively, in the validation cohort 1. Plots show the ROC curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (g), HER2+ (h) and TNBC subtype (i), respectively, in the validation cohort 2. Plots show the ROC curves of the stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (j), HER2+ (k) and TNBC subtype (l), respectively, in the validation cohort 3.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Predictive performances of the different models in the primary and external validation cohorts (a–f). Plots show the decision curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (c) and TNBC subtype (e), respectively, in the primary cohort. Plots show the decision curves of the stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (b), HER2+ (d) and TNBC subtype (f), respectively, in the validation cohorts.
Fig. 5 Predictive performances of the different models in the primary and external validation cohorts (a–f). Plots show the decision curves of stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (a), HER2+ (c) and TNBC subtype (e), respectively, in the primary cohort. Plots show the decision curves of the stacking model, pre-model, post-model and delta-model, in HR+/HER2− (b), HER2+ (d) and TNBC subtype (f), respectively, in the validation cohorts.CC BY-NC-ND · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 55 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–175 of 175

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Huang, Y., Zhu, T., Zhang, X., Li, W., Zheng, X., Cheng, M., Ji, F., Zhang, L., Yang, C., Wu, Z., Ye, G., Lin, Y., & Wang, K.
Affiliations
  • Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences (CN)
  • Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
  • First People's Hospital of Foshan (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Ye, GuoLin
  • Lin, Ying
  • Wang, Kun
ORCID
Venue
eClinicalMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-04
Volume
58
Pages
101899
ISSN
2589-5370 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.101899
PMC
PMC10050775
OpenAlex
W4360796946
Cited by
175
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 13
FWCI
28.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • EClinicalMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • High-level Hospital Construction Project of Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (DFJHBF202109)
  • Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong Province (2020A1515010346, 2021A1515011570, 2022A1515012277)
  • Scientific and Technological Planning Project of Guangzhou City
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (82103093)
  • Guangzhou Municipal Science and Technology Project (202002030236, 202102021055)
  • Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82171898)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › MRI in cancer diagnosis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
breast cancer, pathological complete response, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, multiparametric MRI, longitudinal MRI, radiomics, deep features, ensemble learning, stacking ensemble, breast cancer subtypes, triple-negative breast cancer, HER2-positive breast cancer, hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer, treatment response prediction, feature selection, external validation, multilayer perceptron

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review