Radiomics in Breast Cancer: In-Depth Machine Analysis of MR Images of Metastatic Spine Lesion

Using mathematic criteria for image processing (radiomics) makes it possible to more accurately assess the nature of therapy-associated changes and determine the sites of maximal response. Comparison of the acquired quantitative and clinical data may assist radiologists in making the optimal decision.

The aim of the study was to assess the capabilities of software operators for an in-depth analysis of metastatic spine lesion images in breast cancer.

Materials and Methods. MRI data of three patients with breast cancer T₂N_2–3M₁ receiving treatment in accordance with the accepted clinical protocols were used in our work. Spinal metastases were assessed by a radiologist and machine analysis using the Arzela variation operators. Twelve MRI examinations (4 per each patient) excluding the baseline examination have been analyzed with a follow-up period of about 3 months.

Results. The structure of the metastatically modified spine was analysed segment by segment in the sagittal and axial projections using machine image analysis operators. Rapid changes in the “complexity” of vertebrae images have been found, allowing one to suggest the efficacy of treatment in one of the three options — stabilization, improvement, progression. Changes in the vertebrae structure with a positive response to the treatment in the form of the formation of bone objects, calderas, reduction of the contrast agent circulation at the microlevel, confirmed by mathematical analysis, have been monitored. A correlation was obtained between the established changes and the level of the CA 15-3 cancer marker.

Conclusion. The study has shown a high effectiveness of machine image analysis algorithms, high correlation of the obtained results with the radiologist’s report and clinical and laboratory data in 9 cases out of 12. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the classical marker and matrix filter curve was 0.8.

1. Cardoso F., Kyriakides S., Ohno S., Penault-Llorca F., Poortmans P., Rubio I.T., Zackrisson S., Senkus E., ESMO Guidelines Committee. Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2019; 30(8): 1194–1220, https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz173.
2. Tagliafico A.S., Piana M., Schenone D., Lai R., Massone A.M., Houssami N. Overview of radiomics in breast cancer diagnosis and prognostication. Breast 2020; 49: 74–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.10.018.
3. Sergeev N.I., Kotlayrov P.M., Solodkiy V.A., Bliznyukov O.P. Metastatic diseases of bones at a breast cancer by data of high-field magnetic-resonance tomography. Vestnik Rossijskogo naucnogo centra rentgenoradiologii 2012; 12(1): 15.
4. Parekh V.S., Jacobs M.A. Integrated radiomic framework for breast cancer and tumor biology using advanced machine learning and multiparametric MRI. NPJ Breast Cancer 2017; 3: 43, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-017-0045-3.
5. Hardisty M., Gordon L., Agarwal P., Skrinskas T., Whyne C. Quantitative characterization of metastatic disease in the spine. Part I. Semiautomated segmentation using atlas-based deformable registration and the level set method. Med Phys 2007; 34(8): 3127–3134, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2746498.
6. Chochia P.A., Milukova O.P. Two-dimensional variations comparison in the context of digital image complexity assessment. J Commun Technol Electron 2015; 60: 1443–1440, https://doi.org/10.1134/s1064226915120049.
7. Image processing. BOOFCV; 2021. URL: https://boofcv.org/index.php?title=Main_Page.
8. AlNouri M., Al Saei J., Younis M., Bouri F., Al Habash M.A., Shah M.H., Al Dosari M. Comparison of edge detection algorithms for automated radiographic measurement of the carrying angle. J Biomed Eng Med Imaging 2015; 12: 78–98, https://doi.org/10.14738/jbemi.26.1753.
9. Danilenko V.I. Simmetriya i rak. Metodologiya i morfogenez [Symmetry and cancer. Methodology and morphogenesis]. Saarbrücken, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing; 2017; p. 85.
10. Tsoriev A.E. Opukholi pozvonochnika [Tumors of the spine]. Ekaterinburg: UGMU; 2021. URL: http://www.obtc.ru/spetsialistam/glavnyy-vneshtatnyy- spetsialist-po-luchevoy-i-instrumentalnoy- diagnostike/tsoriev_opuholi.pdf.
11. Di Gioia D., Stieber P., Schmidt G.P., Nagel D., Heinemann V., Baur-Melnyk A. Early detection of metastatic disease in asymptomatic breast cancer patients with whole-body imaging and defined tumour marker increase. Br J Cancer 2015; 112(5): 809–818, https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.8.
12. Najafi M., Mortezaee K., Ahadi R. Cancer stem cell (a)symmetry & plasticity: tumorigenesis and therapy relevance. Life Sci 2019; 231: 116520, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2019.05.076.
13. Sergeev N.I., Kotlayrov P.M., Nudnov N.V. Estimation of the results of chemoradiation treatment of metastatic bone lesions on magnetic resonance imaging with dynamic contrast enhancement. Lucevaa diagnostika i terapia 2013; 3(4): 89–92.
14. Petrova A.D. Otsenka effektivnosti lekarstvennogo lecheniya metastazov v kostyakh u bol‘nykh rakom molochnoy zhelezy. Dis. … kand. med. nauk [Evaluation of the effectiveness of drug treatment of bone metastases in patients with breast cancer. PhD Thesis]. Moscow; 2014.
15. Steinhauer V., Steinhauer L. Neuroph und DL4J. Einsatz in einer medizinischen Java-Anwendung. Java Magazin 2021; 06: 79–82.

Steinhauer V., Sergeev N.I. Radiomics in Breast Cancer: In-Depth Machine Analysis of MR Images of Metastatic Spine Lesion. Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2022; 14(2): 16, https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2022.14.2.02