Original Investigation|Articles in Press

An MRI-Based Radiomics Nomogram to Distinguish Ductal Carcinoma In Situ with Microinvasion From Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of Breast Cancer


      • Accurate preoperative differentiation between DCISM and DCIS can facilitate individualized treatment optimization.
      • A radiomics nomogram based on preoperative MR images demonstrated the best discrimination efficacy between DCISM and DCIS.
      • BPE was an independent clinical risk factor for differentiating DCISM from DCIS.

      Rationale and Objectives

      Accurate preoperative differentiation between ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion (DCISM) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) could facilitate treatment optimization and individualized risk assessment. The present study aims to build and validate a radiomics nomogram based on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) that could distinguish DCISM from pure DCIS breast cancer.

      Materials and Methods

      MR images of 140 patients obtained between March 2019 and November 2022 at our institution were included. Patients were randomly divided into a training (n = 97) and a test set (n = 43). Patients in both sets were further split into DCIS and DCISM subgroups. The independent clinical risk factors were selected by multivariate logistic regression to establish the clinical model. The optimal radiomics features were chosen by the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, and a radiomics signature was built. The nomogram model was constructed by integrating the radiomics signature and independent risk factors. The discrimination efficacy of our nomogram was assessed by using calibration and decision curves.


      Six features were selected to construct the radiomics signature for distinguishing DCISM from DCIS. The radiomics signature and nomogram model exhibited better calibration and validation performance in the training (AUC 0.815, 0.911, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.703–0.926, 0.848–0.974) and test (AUC 0.830, 0.882, 95% CI, 0.672–0.989, 0.764–0.999) sets than in the clinical factor model (AUC 0.672, 0.717, 95% CI, 0.544–0.801, 0.527–0.907). The decision curve also demonstrated that the nomogram model exhibited good clinical utility.


      The proposed noninvasive MRI-based radiomics nomogram model showed good performance in distinguishing DCISM from DCIS.


      ACR (American College of Radiology), BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System), BPE (background parenchymal enhancement), DBT (digital breast tomosynthesis), DCA (decision curve analysis), DCE-MRI (dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging), DCIS (ductal carcinoma in situ), DCISM (DCIS with microinvasion), LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator), mRMR (minimum redundancy maximum relevance), NME (non-mass enhancement)

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Radiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Zhu M.
        • Pi Y.
        • Jiang Z.
        • et al.
        Application of deep learning to identify ductal carcinoma in situ and microinvasion of the breast using ultrasound imaging.
        Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2022; 12: 4633-4646
        • Champion C.D.
        • Ren Y.
        • Thomas S.M.
        • et al.
        DCIS with microinvasion: is it in situ or invasive disease.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2019; 26: 3124-3132
        • Shaaban A.M.
        • Hilton B.
        • Clements K.
        • et al.
        The presentation, management and outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (invasion ≤1 mm in size) – results from the UK Sloane Project.
        Br J Cancer. 2022; 127 (Published online ahead of print Oct 12, 2022): 2125-2132
        • Sopik V.
        • Sun P.
        • Narod S.A.
        Impact of microinvasion on breast cancer mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 167: 787-795
        • Okumura Y.
        • Yamamoto Y.
        • Zhang Z.
        • et al.
        Identification of biomarkers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with microinvasion.
        BMC Cancer. 2008; 8 (Published Oct 6, 2008): 287
        • Vieira C.C.
        • Mercado C.L.
        • Cangiarella J.F.
        • et al.
        Microinvasive ductal carcinoma in situ: clinical presentation, imaging features, pathologic findings, and outcome.
        Eur J Radiol. 2010; 73: 102-107
        • Wang W.
        • Zhu W.
        • Du F.
        • et al.
        The demographic features, clinicopathological characteristics and cancer-specific outcomes for patients with microinvasive breast cancer: a SEER database analysis.
        Sci Rep. 2017; 7 (Published Feb 6, 2017): 42045
        • Wan Z.B.
        • Gao H.Y.
        • Wei L.
        • et al.
        Expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and Ki-67 in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with microinvasion.
        Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97e13055
        • Hwang E.S.
        • Hyslop T.
        • Lynch T.
        • et al.
        The COMET (comparison of operative versus monitoring and endocrine therapy) trial: a phase III randomised controlled clinical trial for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS.
        BMJ Open. 2019; 9 (Published Mar 12, 2019)e026797
        • National Comprehensive Cancer Network
        Clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast. 2017 (Available at: Accessed October 20, 2017)
        • El Hage Chehade H.
        • Headon H.
        • Wazir U.
        • et al.
        Is sentinel lymph node biopsy indicated in patients with a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ? A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
        Am J Surg. 2017; 213: 171-180
        • Fang Y.
        • Wu J.
        • Wang W.
        • et al.
        Biologic behavior and long-term outcomes of breast ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion.
        Oncotarget. 2016; 7: 64182-64190
        • Wang W.
        • Zhu W.
        • Du F.
        • et al.
        The demographic features, clinicopathological characteristics and cancer-specific outcomes for patients with microinvasive breast cancer: a SEER database analysis.
        Sci Rep. 2017; 7 (Published Feb 6, 2017): 42045
        • Chen X.Y.
        • Thike A.A.
        • Koh V.C.Y.
        • et al.
        Breast ductal carcinoma in situ associated with microinvasion induces immunological response and predicts ipsilateral invasive recurrence.
        Virchows Arch. 2021; 478: 679-686
        • Grimm L.J.
        • Ryser M.D.
        • Partridge A.H.
        • et al.
        Surgical upstaging rates for vacuum assisted biopsy proven DCIS: implications for active surveillance trials.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2017; 24: 3534-3540
        • Chin-Lenn L.
        • Mack L.A.
        • Temple W.
        • et al.
        Predictors of treatment with mastectomy, use of sentinel lymph node biopsy and upstaging to invasive cancer in patients diagnosed with breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) on core biopsy.
        Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 66-73
        • Chavez de Paz Villanueva C.
        • Bonev V.
        • Senthil M.
        • et al.
        Factors associated with underestimation of invasive cancer in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ: precautions for active surveillance.
        JAMA Surg. 2017; 152 (Published correction appears in JAMA Surg. 2018 Mar 1;153(3):292): 1007-1014
        • Pinker K.
        Preoperative MRI improves surgical planning and outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Radiology. 2020; 295: 304-306
        • Kuhl C.K.
        • Strobel K.
        • Bieling H.
        • et al.
        Impact of preoperative breast MR imaging and MR-guided surgery on diagnosis and surgical outcome of women with invasive breast cancer with and without DCIS component.
        Radiology. 2017; 284: 645-655
        • Baur A.
        • Bahrs S.D.
        • Speck S.
        • et al.
        Breast MRI of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: sensitivity of diagnosis and influence of lesion characteristics.
        Eur J Radiol. 2013; 82: 1731-1737
        • Bartram A.
        • Gilbert F.
        • Thompson A.
        • et al.
        Breast MRI in DCIS size estimation, breast-conserving surgery and oncoplastic breast surgery.
        Cancer Treat Rev. 2021; 94102158
        • Neubauer H.
        • Li M.
        • Kuehne-Heid R.
        • et al.
        High grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ on dynamic MR mammography: characteristic findings for signal increase and morphological pattern of enhancement.
        Br J Radiol. 2003; 76: 3-12
        • Berg W.A.
        • Gutierrez L.
        • NessAiver M.S.
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.
        Radiology. 2004; 233: 830-849
        • Greenwood H.I.
        • Wilmes L.J.
        • Kelil T.
        • et al.
        Role of breast MRI in the evaluation and detection of DCIS: opportunities and challenges.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020; 52: 697-709
        • Kuhl C.K.
        • Schrading S.
        • Bieling H.B.
        • et al.
        MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study.
        Lancet. 2007; 370: 485-492
        • Yoon G.Y.
        • Choi W.J.
        • Kim H.H.
        • et al.
        Surgical outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ: impact of preoperative MRI.
        Radiology. 2020; 295: 296-303
        • Bian T.
        • Wu Z.
        • Lin Q.
        • et al.
        Evaluating tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer using preoperative MRI-based radiomics.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2022; 55: 772-784
        • Giuliano A.E.
        • Connolly J.L.
        • Edge S.B.
        • et al.
        Breast cancer-major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67 (Published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Jul 8;67(4):345): 290-303
        • Edge S.B.
        • Byrd D.R.
        • Compton C.C.
        AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. Springer, New York, NY2010
        • Yoon H.J.
        • Kim Y.
        • Kim B.S.
        Intratumoral metabolic heterogeneity predicts invasive components in breast ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Eur Radiol. 2015; 25: 3648-3658
        • Lee S.A.
        • Lee Y.
        • Ryu H.S.
        • et al.
        Diffusion-weighted breast MRI in prediction of upstaging in women with biopsy-proven ductal carcinoma in situ.
        Radiology. 2022; 305 (Published correction appears in Radiology. 2022 Oct;305(1):E60): 307-316
        • Yoon G.Y.
        • Choi W.J.
        • Cha J.H.
        • et al.
        The role of MRI and clinicopathologic features in predicting the invasive component of biopsy-confirmed ductal carcinoma in situ.
        BMC Med Imaging. 2020; 20 (Published Aug 12, 2020): 95
        • Hahn S.Y.
        • Han B.K.
        • Ko E.Y.
        • et al.
        MR features to suggest microinvasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: can it be differentiated from pure DCIS?.
        Acta Radiol. 2013; 54: 742-748
        • Hussein H.
        • Chung C.
        • Moshonov H.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of apparent diffusion coefficient to predict grade, microinvasion, and invasion in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
        Acad Radiol. 2015; 22: 1483-1488
        • Lee S.H.
        • Jang M.J.
        • Yoen H.
        • et al.
        Background parenchymal enhancement at postoperative surveillance breast MRI: association with future second breast cancer risk.
        Radiology. 2022; 306 (220440. Published online ahead of print, Aug 30, 2022): 90-99
        • Arasu V.A.
        • Miglioretti D.L.
        • Sprague B.L.
        • et al.
        Population-based assessment of the association between magnetic resonance imaging background parenchymal enhancement and future primary breast cancer risk.
        J Clin Oncol. 2019; 37: 954-963
        • Thompson C.M.
        • Mallawaarachchi I.
        • Dwivedi D.K.
        • et al.
        The association of background parenchymal enhancement at breast MRI with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Radiology. 2019; 292: 552-561
        • Zhang C.
        • Liang Z.
        • Feng Y.
        • et al.
        Risk factors for lymphovascular invasion in invasive ductal carcinoma based on clinical and preoperative breast MRI features: a retrospective study.
        Acad Radiol. 2022; S1076-6332 (Published online ahead of print, Nov 19, 2022)00588-8
        • Luo J.
        • Johnston B.S.
        • Kitsch A.E.
        • et al.
        Ductal carcinoma in situ: quantitative preoperative breast MR imaging features associated with recurrence after treatment.
        Radiology. 2017; 285: 788-797
        • Lim Y.
        • Ko E.S.
        • Han B.K.
        • et al.
        Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: association with recurrence-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017; 163: 573-586
        • Dean P.B.
        Radiomics and breast cancer management.
        Acad Radiol. 2022; 29: 1783-1785
        • Wu Z.
        • Lin Q.
        • Song H.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of lymphatic vessel invasion determined by D2-40 using preoperative MRI-based radiomics for invasive breast cancer.
        Acad Radiol. 2022; (S1076-6332(22)00629-8. Published online ahead of print, Dec 29, 2022)