Preoperative Prediction of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Upstaging Using Machine Learning‐Based Peritumoral Breast
MRI
Radiomics
K. Ruwani M. Fernando, Issam El Naqa, Mahmoud Abdalah, Dana Ataya, Marilyn M. Bui, Jasmine R. Brainerd, Yarelis De La Cruz, Olya Stringfield, Brian Czerniecki, Natarajan Raghunand, Lev Barinov, Amber C. Simmons, Elizabeth S. McDonald, Bethany L. Niell ABSTRACT
Background
A subset of biopsy‐confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cases can be upstaged to invasive breast cancer at surgery. Preoperative identification of upstaging risk is essential for treatment planning.
Purpose
To develop clinical and breast MRI radiomics models to preoperatively predict upstaging in DCIS.
Study Type
Retrospective and prospective.
Population
Three hundred forty‐five women (median age, 59 years [IQR, 49–67]) with 362 DCIS lesions diagnosed via core‐needle biopsy (training: n = 216, internal testing: n = 53, external testing: n = 93).
Field Strength/Sequences
1.5 T 3D T1‐weighted spoiled gradient‐echo MRI: pre‐contrast non‐fat‐suppressed and dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) fat‐suppressed sequences.
Assessments
Clinical and radiomics features were extracted from radiologist‐segmented lesions on DCE breast MRI. Seven machine learning algorithms were evaluated across clinical‐only (demographic and clinicopathologic variables), radiomics‐only (whole‐lesion/peritumoral), and combined models, using nested cross‐validation and internal and external testing. Feature importance was assessed using Shapley additive explanation (SHAP).
Statistical Tests
Mann–Whitney, Chi‐square, DeLong tests; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV).
Results
The clinical model achieved AUC 0.70 (95% CI: 0.51–0.89), with 36% sensitivity and 84% NPV. A multilayer perceptron integrating clinical and peritumoral radiomics non‐significantly increased AUC to 0.75 (95% CI: 0.58–0.92; ΔAUC = +0.05; False Discovery Rate p‐ adj = 0.65), improving sensitivity to 82% (Δ = +46%) and NPV to 92% (Δ = +8%). On external testing, AUC was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.50–0.76) with no significant change over the clinical baseline (ΔAUC = −0.03; FDR p ‐adj = 0.857) but demonstrated superior sensitivity (68%; Δ = +30%) and NPV (84%; Δ = +3%). SHAP identified peritumoral center‐of‐mass shift as the dominant predictor.
Data Conclusion
Clinical‐peritumoral modeling did not significantly improve discrimination over the clinical baseline but showed higher NPV and sensitivity, suggesting the tumor microenvironment may provide complementary information for upstaging risk stratification.
Level of Evidence
3.
Technical Efficacy
Stage 2.