Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 78, Issue 14, pp 19979–20003 | Cite as

Extraction of spiculated parts of mammogram tumors to improve accuracy of classification

  • H. Pezeshki
  • M. RastgarpourEmail author
  • A. Sharifi
  • S. Yazdani
Article
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Spiculated parts of masses are significant features to classify tumors in digital mammography; however, segmentation, which is used to extract the shape and contour of a tumor, eliminates them. To address this problem, the current study proposes a novel algorithm for extraction of the spiculated pixels of a tumor that are of similar intensity along a line. It first applies the sums of the differences between the central pixel and neighboring pixels in different symmetric orthogonal directions. The minimum difference between two symmetric orthogonal directions specifies the similarity of pixels in one direction as denoting a spiculated part of the mass. These parts then are added to the segmented image to enhance the shape of tumor. The features of the tumor are extracted from the final segmented image to allow its classification as benign or malignant. Simulation results showed that the accuracy and the area under the ROC curve of the proposed method for mini-MIAS and DDSM databases were 91.37% and 93.22% and 0.9776 and 0.9752, respectively. This confirms the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm for extraction of the spiculated parts of a malignant tumor with the aim of increasing the classification accuracy.

Keywords

Mammographic mass classification Breast cancer Extraction of spiculated parts Segmentation Feature extraction 

Notes

Funding Information

This study was not funded.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bezdek JC (2013) Pattern recognition with fuzzy objective function algorithms. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Cawley GC, Talbot NL (2010) On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. J Mach Learn Res 11(Jul):2079–2107MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheikhrouhou I, Djemal K, Sellami D, Maaref H, Derbel N (2008) New mass description in mammographies. In: IPTA 2008 1st workshops on image processing theory, tools and applications, 2008., pp 1–5. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chuang KS, Tzeng HL, Chen S, Wu J, Chen TJ (2006) Fuzzy c-means clustering with spatial information for image segmentation computerized medical imaging and graphics. Comput Med Imaging Graph 30(1):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Domínguez AR, Nandi AK (2009) Toward breast cancer diagnosis based on automated segmentation of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recogn 42(6):1138–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Feig SA, Yaffe MJ (1995) Digital mammography, computer-aided diagnosis, and telemammography. Radiol Clin North Am 33(6):1205–1230Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forsyth D, Ponce J (2011) Computer vision: a modern approach. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Franquet T, De Miguel C, Cozcolluela R, Donoso L (1993) Spiculated lesions of the breast: mammographic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 13(4):841–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Görgel P, Sertbas A, Uçan ON (2015) Computer-aided classification of breast masses in mammogram images based on spherical wavelet transform and support vector machines. Expert Syst 32(1):155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guliato D, Rangayyan RM, de Carvalho JD, Santiago SA (2006) Spiculation-preserving polygonal modeling of contours of breast tumors. In: 2006 EMBS’06 28th annual international conference of the ieee engineering in medicine and biology society, pp 2791–2794. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, Moore R, Kegelmeyer WP (2000) The digital database for screening mammography. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on digital mammography, pp 212–218. Medical Physics PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Huang CL, Liao HC, Chen MC (2008) Prediction model building and feature selection with support vector machines in breast cancer diagnosis. Expert Syst Appl 34(1):578–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huo Z, Giger ML, Vyborny CJ, Wolverton DE, Metz CE (2000) Computerized classification of benign and malignant masses on digitized mammograms: a study of robustness. Acad Radiol 7(12):1077–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jalaja K, Bhagvati C, Deekshatulu BL, Pujari AK (2005) Texture element feature characterizations for cbir. In: Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, 2005 IGARSS’05 Proceedings 2005 IEEE International, vol 2, pp 4–pp IEEEGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kashyap KL, Bajpai MK, Khanna P (2015) Breast cancer detection in digital mammograms. In: 2015 IEEE international conference on imaging systems and techniques (IST), pp 1–6. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kashyap KL, Bajpai MK, Khanna P (2017) An efficient algorithm for mass detection and shape analysis of different masses present in digital mammograms. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keller B, Nathan D, Wang Y, Zheng Y, Gee J, Conant E, Kontos D (2011) Adaptive multi-cluster fuzzy c-means segmentation of breast parenchymal tissue in digital mammography. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, pp 562–569. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan S, Hussain M, Aboalsamh H, Mathkour H, Bebis G, Zakariah M (2016) Optimized gabor features for mass classification in mammography. Appl Soft Comput 44:267–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lai SM, Li X, Biscof W (1989) On techniques for detecting circumscribed masses in mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 8(4):377–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu X, Tang J (2014) Mass classification in mammograms using selected geometry and texture features, and a new svm-based feature selection method. IEEE Syst J 8(3):910–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maitra IK, Nag S, Bandyopadhyay SK (2012) Technique for preprocessing of digital mammogram. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 107(2):175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mandelbrot BB (1982) The fractal geometry of nature 1982. San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mohanty AK, Senapati MR, Lenka SK (2013) A novel image mining technique for classification of mammograms using hybrid feature selection. Neural Comput and Applic 22(6):1151–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mohanty F, Rup S, Dash B, Majhi B, Swamy M (2018) Mammogram classification using contourlet features with forest optimization-based feature selection approach. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Natt NK, Kaur H, Raghava G (2004) Prediction of transmembrane regions of β-barrel proteins using ann-and svm-based methods. PROTEINS: Structure Function, and Bioinformatics 56(1):11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nguyen TM, Rangayyan RM (2006) Shape analysis of breast masses in mammograms via the fractal dimension. In: 2005 27th annual international conference of the engineering in medicine and biology society, 2005 IEEE-EMBS, pp 3210–3213 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Oh IS, Lee JS, Moon BR (2004) Hybrid genetic algorithms for feature selection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 11:1424–1437Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recogn 29(1):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rabidas R, Chakraborty J, Midya A (2016) Analysis of 2d singularities for mammographic mass classification. IET Comput Vis 11(1):22–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rouhi R, Jafari M (2016) Classification of benign and malignant breast tumors based on hybrid level set segmentation. Expert Syst Appl 46:45–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rouhi R, Jafari M, Kasaei S, Keshavarzian P (2015) Benign and malignant breast tumors classification based on region growing and cnn segmentation. Expert Syst Appl 42(3):990–1002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, Helvie MA, Goodsitt MM (1998) Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: The rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. Med Phys 25(4):516–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, Helvie MA, Hadjiiski LM (2001) Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation measures and morphological features. Med Phys 28(7):1455–1465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saki F, Tahmasbi A, Soltanian-Zadeh H, Shokouhi SB (2013) Fast opposite weight learning rules with application in breast cancer diagnosis. Comput Biol Med 43(1):32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sampat MP, Bovik AC, Whitman GJ, Markey MK (2008) A model-based framework for the detection of spiculated masses on mammography. Med Phys 35(5):2110–2123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sickles EA (1989) Breast masses: mammographic evaluation. Radiology 173(2):297–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Suckling J, Parker J, Dance D, Astley S, Hutt I, Boggis C, Ricketts I, Stamatakis E, Cerneaz N, Kok S et al (1994) The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database. In: Exerpta medica international congress series, vol 1069, pp 375–378Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sundaram M, Ramar K, Arumugam N, Prabin G (2011) Histogram based contrast enhancement for mammogram images. In: 2011 international conference on signal processing, communication, computing and networking technologies (ICSCCN), pp 842–846. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Vapnik V (2013) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vikhe P, Thool V (2018) Morphological operation and scaled réyni entropy based approach for masses detection in mammograms. Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vyborny CJ, Doi T, O’Shaughnessy KF, Romsdahl HM, Schneider AC, Stein AA (2000) Breast cancer: importance of spiculation in computer-aided detection. Radiology 215(3):703–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang X, Lederman D, Tan J, Wang XH, Zheng B (2011) Computerized prediction of risk for developing breast cancer based on bilateral mammographic breast tissue asymmetry. Med Eng Phys 33(8):934–942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wang Y, Li J, Gao X (2014) Latent feature mining of spatial and marginal characteristics for mammographic mass classification. Neurocomputing 144:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wu WJ, Lin SW, Moon WK (2012) Combining support vector machine with genetic algorithm to classify ultrasound breast tumor images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 36(8):627–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xie W, Li Y, Ma Y (2016) Breast mass classification in digital mammography based on extreme learning machine. Neurocomputing 173:930–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Pezeshki
    • 1
  • M. Rastgarpour
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. Sharifi
    • 1
  • S. Yazdani
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Computer Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Saveh BranchIslamic Azad UniversitySavehIran
  3. 3.Department of Computer Engineering, North Tehran BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations