Dynamic Diffuse Optical Tomography for Monitoring Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To identify dynamic optical imaging features that associate with the degree of pathologic response in patients with breast cancer during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Materials and Methods Of 40 patients with breast cancer who participated in a longitudinal study between June 2011 and March 2016, 34 completed the study. There were 13 patients who obtained a pathologic complete response (pCR) and 21 patients who did not obtain a pCR. Imaging data from six subjects were excluded from the study because either the patients dropped out of the study before it was finished or there was an instrumentation malfunction. Two weeks into the treatment regimen, three-dimensional images of both breasts during a breath hold were acquired by using dynamic diffuse optical tomography. Features from the breath-hold traces were used to distinguish between response groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and sensitivity analysis were used to determine the degree of association with 5-month treatment outcome. Results An ROC curve analysis showed that this method could identify patients with a pCR with a positive predictive value of 70.6% (12 of 17), a negative predictive value of 94.1% (16 of 17), a sensitivity of 92.3% (12 of 13), a specificity of 76.2% (16 of 21), and an area under the ROC curve of 0.85. Conclusion Several dynamic optical imaging features obtained within 2 weeks of NAC initiation were identified that showed statistically significant differences between patients with pCR and patients without pCR as determined 5 months after treatment initiation. If confirmed in a larger cohort prospective study, these dynamic imaging features may be used to predict treatment outcome as early as 2 weeks after treatment initiation. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".