Mammogram Quantitative Features Associated with Histological High-Grade Breast Cancer
International Journal of Medical Imaging
Volume 8, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages: 39-44
Received: Jun. 15, 2020; Accepted: Jul. 8, 2020; Published: Jul. 17, 2020
Views 115      Downloads 49
Authors
Bonou Malomon Aime, Non-Communicable Diseases and Cancer Research Unit, Laboratory of Applied Biology Research, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin
Topanou Roland Guy Boniface, Non-Communicable Diseases and Cancer Research Unit, Laboratory of Applied Biology Research, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin
Hounsossou Cocou Hubert, Non-Communicable Diseases and Cancer Research Unit, Laboratory of Applied Biology Research, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin
Gbossa Eddy Hans, Non-Communicable Diseases and Cancer Research Unit, Laboratory of Applied Biology Research, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin
Dossou Julien, Non-Communicable Diseases and Cancer Research Unit, Laboratory of Applied Biology Research, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, University of Abomey-Calavi, Abomey-Calavi, Benin
Biaou Olivier, Medical Imaging Unit of "National Hospital and University center H. K. Maga", Cotonou, Benin
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
High grade breast cancer is recognized as more aggressive cancer type and is the worst survival prognostic. To explore the association of quantitative features extracted from mammograms with histological high-grade breast cancer. We conducted a retrospective study using an open source data got from figshare repository. These anonymized data were collected and used for a study approved by the institutional review board. Cranio-Caudal (CC) and Medio-lateral (MLO) mammograms and their tumor segmented images from 66 patients subdivided in two groups high histological grade (n=23) low-grade (low and intermediate, n=41). From breast cancer image segmentation, we extracted 480 features using python software radiomics package Pyradiomics 2.2. With the features extracted from CC and MLO images, we used them separately for histological high-grade breast, relevant feature selection. We performed univariate feature selection based on ANOVA test using machine learning python package: sklearn. A feature was considered relevant when P value is at least 0.05. At the end we represented the boxplot of the distribution of the low-and high-grade subject using each relevant feature selected. Twenty (20) CC images features were selected, seventen (17) were based on wavelets and three (3) were from original image. Their p values were ranged between 0.017 and 0.046. In the case of MLO features, four (04) relevant features were exclusively based on wavelets with 0.046 as the maximum p-value and 0.006 as minimum. These results suggested mammogram quantitative feature based on wavelets will be useful for high-grade breast cancer identification on mammographic image. In this study we explored the association between IBSI 2D quantitative features from mammogram with the histological high-grade breast cancer. Finally, we recorded twenty (20) relevant features from CC projection and four for MLO mammogram projection. Wavelets based features were more represented in relevant quantitative feature.
Keywords
Quantitative Feature, Mammography, High Grade Cancer, Breast
To cite this article
Bonou Malomon Aime, Topanou Roland Guy Boniface, Hounsossou Cocou Hubert, Gbossa Eddy Hans, Dossou Julien, Biaou Olivier, Mammogram Quantitative Features Associated with Histological High-Grade Breast Cancer, International Journal of Medical Imaging. Vol. 8, No. 3, 2020, pp. 39-44. doi: 10.11648/j.ijmi.20200803.11
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al (2018) Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 68: 394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
[2]
Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19: 403-410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x
[3]
Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Powe DG, et al (2008) Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and outcomes. Eur J Cancer 44: 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2007.10.009
[4]
Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AHS, et al (2008) Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 26: 3153-3158. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5986
[5]
Lamb PM, Perry NM, Vinnicombe SJ, Wells CA (2000) Correlation Between Ultrasound Characteristics, Mammographic Findings and Histological Grade in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast. Clinical Radiology 55: 40-44. https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.1999.0333
[6]
Shin HJ, Kim HH, Huh MO, et al (2011) Correlation between mammographic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in patients with node-negative invasive breast cancer. BJR 84: 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/92960562
[7]
Grimm LJ, Mazurowski MA (2020) Breast Cancer Radiogenomics: Current Status and Future Directions. Academic Radiology 27: 39-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.09.012
[8]
Court LE, Fave X, Mackin D, et al (2016) Computational resources for radiomics. Translational Cancer Research 5: 340-348. https://doi.org/10.21037/8409
[9]
Zwanenburg A, Leger S, Vallières M, Löck S (2019) Image biomarker standardisation initiative. arXiv: 161207003 [cs, eess].
[10]
Trevino V (2018) Breast Cancer Images & Segmentation - Correlation of Gene Expression Subtypes and Image Features
[11]
Tamez-Peña J-G, Rodriguez-Rojas J-A, Gomez-Rueda H, et al (2018) Radiogenomics analysis identifies correlations of digital mammography with clinical molecular signatures in breast cancer. PLOS ONE 13: e0193871. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193871
[12]
Yaniv Z, Lowekamp BC, Johnson HJ, Beare R (2018) SimpleITK Image-Analysis Notebooks: a Collaborative Environment for Education and Reproducible Research. Journal of Digital Imaging 31: 290-303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-017-0037-8
[13]
van Griethuysen JJM, Fedorov A, Parmar C, et al (2017) Computational Radiomics System to Decode the Radiographic Phenotype. Cancer Research 77: e104-e107. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-0339
[14]
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, et al (2011) Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12: 2825-2830.
[15]
Omer Fadl Elssied N, Ibrahim O, Hamza Osman A (2014) A Novel Feature Selection Based on One-Way ANOVA F-Test for E-Mail Spam Classification. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 7: 625-638. https://doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.7.299
[16]
Olaolu AM (2016) A Feature Selection Based on One-Way-Anova for Microarray Data Classification. 30-35.
[17]
Huang S, Franc BL, Harnish RJ, et al (2018) Exploration of PET and MRI radiomic features for decoding breast cancer phenotypes and prognosis. NPJ Breast Cancer 4: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-018-0078-2
[18]
Fan M, Liu Z, Xie S, et al (2019) Integration of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and T2-weighted imaging radiomic features by a canonical correlation analysis-based feature fusion method to predict histological grade in ductal breast carcinoma. Phys Med Biol 64: 215001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ab3fd3
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-983-5186