Radiomics Based on DCE-MRI Improved Diagnostic Performance Compared to BI-RADS Analysis in Identifying Sclerosing Adenosis of the Breast

Sclerosing adenosis (SA) is a benign lesion that could mimic breast carcinoma and be evaluated as malignancy by Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) analysis. We aimed to construct and validate the performance of radiomic model based on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) compared to BI-RADS analysis to identify SA. Sixty-seven patients with invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) and 58 patients with SA were included in this retrospective study from two institutions. The 125 patients were divided into a training cohort (n= 88) from institution I and a validation cohort from institution II (n=37). Dynamic contrast-enhanced sequences including one pre-contrast and five dynamic post-contrast series were obtained for all cases with different 3T scanners. Single-phase enhancement, multi-phase enhancement, and dynamic radiomic features were extracted from DCE-MRI. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression and cross-validation was performed to build the radscore of each single-phase enhancement and the final model combined multi-phase and dynamic radiomic features. The diagnostic performance of radiomics was evaluated by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and compared to the performance of BI-RADS analysis. The classification performance was tested using external validation. In the training cohort, the AUCs of BI-RADS analysis were 0.71 (95%CI [0.60, 0.80]), 0.78 (95%CI [0.67, 0.86]), and 0.80 (95%CI [0.70, 0.88]), respectively. In single-phase analysis, the second enhanced phase radiomic signature achieved the highest AUC of 0.88 (95%CI [0.79, 0.94]) in distinguishing SA from IDC. Nine multi-phase radiomic features and two dynamic radiomic features showed the best predictive ability for final model building. The final model improved the AUC to 0.92 (95%CI [0.84, 0.97]), and showed statistically significant differences with BI-RADS analysis (