Validation of Quantitative Ultrasound and Texture Derivative Analyses-Based Model for Upfront Prediction of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer

TL;DR

This study validates a model using ultrasound and texture analysis to predict how breast cancer patients will respond to chemotherapy before treatment begins.

Contribution

The first validation of a model using quantitative ultrasound, texture derivatives, and molecular features to predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer.

Findings

The model achieved 94% sensitivity and 95% F1 score in predicting chemotherapy response.

Unplanned chemotherapy changes reduced negative predictive value but increased specificity to 100%.

Misclassifications were attributed to chemotherapy modifications, DCIS presence, and unclear tumor borders.

Abstract

This work was conducted in order to validate a pre-treatment quantitative ultrasound (QUS) and texture derivative analyses-based prediction model proposed in our previous study to identify responders and non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. The validation cohort consisted of 56 breast cancer patients diagnosed between the years 2018 and 2021. Among all patients, 53 were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and three had unplanned changes in their chemotherapy cycles. Radio Frequency (RF) data were collected volumetrically prior to the start of chemotherapy. In addition to tumour region (core), a 5 mm tumour-margin was also chosen for parameters estimation. The prediction model, which was developed previously based on quantitative ultrasound, texture derivative, and tumour molecular subtypes, was used to identify responders and non-responders. The actual response, which was determined by clinical and pathological assessment after lumpectomy or mastectomy, was then compared to the predicted response. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score for determining chemotherapy response of all patients in the validation cohort were 94%, 67%, 96%, 57%, and 95%, respectively. Removing patients who had unplanned changes in their chemotherapy resulted in a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and F1 score of all patients in the validation cohort of 94%, 100%, 100%, 50%, and 97%, respectively. Explanations for the misclassified cases included unplanned modifications made to the type of chemotherapy during treatment, inherent limitations of the predictive model, presence of DCIS in tumour structure, and an ill-defined tumour border in a minority of cases. Validation of a model was conducted in an independent cohort of patient for the first time to predict the tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy using quantitative ultrasound, texture derivate, and molecular features in patients with breast cancer. Further research is needed to improve the positive predictive value and evaluate whether the treatment outcome can be improved in predicted non-responders by switching to other treatment options.

Figures