Advertisement

A method for the automated classification of benign and malignant masses on digital breast tomosynthesis images using machine learning and radiomic features

  • Ayaka Sakai
  • Yuya Onishi
  • Misaki Matsui
  • Hidetoshi Adachi
  • Atsushi TeramotoEmail author
  • Kuniaki Saito
  • Hiroshi Fujita
Article
  • 44 Downloads

Abstract

In digital mammography, which is used for the early detection of breast tumors, oversight may occur due to overlap between normal tissues and lesions. However, since digital breast tomosynthesis can acquire three-dimensional images, tissue overlapping is reduced, and, therefore, the shape and distribution of the lesions can be easily identified. However, it is often difficult to distinguish between benign and malignant breast lesions on images, and the diagnostic accuracy can be reduced due to complications from radiological interpretations, owing to acquisition of a higher number of images. In this study, we developed an automated classification method for diagnosing breast lesions on digital breast tomosynthesis images using radiomics to comprehensively analyze the radiological images. We extracted an analysis area centered on the lesion and calculated 70 radiomic features, including the shape of the lesion, existence of spicula, and texture information. The accuracy was compared by inputting the obtained radiomic features to four classifiers (support vector machine, random forest, naïve Bayes, and multi-layer perceptron), and the final classification result was obtained as an output using a classifier with high accuracy. To confirm the effectiveness of the proposed method, we used 24 cases with confirmed pathological diagnosis on biopsy. We also compared the classification results based on the presence or absence of dimension reduction using least absolute shrinkage and a selection operator (LASSO). As a result, when the support vector machine was used as a classifier, the correct identification rate of the benign tumors was 55% and that of malignant tumors was 84%, with best results. These results indicate that the proposed method may help in more accurately diagnosing cases that are difficult to classify on images.

Keywords

Breast cancer Tomosynthesis Image analysis Radiomics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Ms. Tomoko Otsuka of Daido Hospital for annotation of clinical data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All the procedures in studies involving human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The present article does not contain any studies performed on animals by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Consent from the patients was obtained with a condition that all data were anonymized.

References

  1. 1.
    NIH: Cancer Statistics: Reports on Cancer: Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer, 2015. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html. Accessed Feb 2019.
  2. 2.
    Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox A, et al. BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med. 2019;21(8):1708–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sardanelli F, Aase HS, Alvarez M, Azavedo E. Position paper on screening for breast cancer by the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) and 30 national breast radiology bodies. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2737–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Roth RG, Maidment AD, Weinstein SP, Roth SO, Conant EF. Digital breast tomosynthesis: lessons learned from early clinical implementation. Radiographics. 2014;34:E89–E102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, et al. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology. 1997;205(2):399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology. 2016;266(1):104–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, et al. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology. 2013;267(1):47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(2):586–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gennaro G, Toledano A, di Maggio C, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography: a clinical performance study. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(7):1545–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    John M. Core-needle biopsy for breast abnormalities. AHRQ Pub. No.14(16)-EHC040-3-EF; 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bhattacharyya D, Bandyopadhyay S, Kim T. Diagnosis of breast cancer by tissue analysis. Chin J Cancer Res. 2013;25(1):39–45.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamazaki M, Teramoto A, Fujita H. A hybrid detection scheme of architectural distortion in mammograms using iris filter and Gabor filter. Lect Comput Sci. 2016;9699:174–82.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang Y, Jiang Y, Nishikawa RM, et al. Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. Acad Radiol. 1999;6(1):22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Christoyianni I, Koutras A, Dermatas E, Kokkinakis G. Computer aided diagnosis of breast cancer in digitized mammograms. Comput Med Imaging Gr. 2002;26(5):309–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eltoukhy M, Faye I, Samir B. A statistical based feature extraction method for breast cancer diagnosis in digital mammogram using multiresolution representation. Comput Biol Med. 2012;42(1):123–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Adv Neurol. 2012;25(6):1106–14.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ragab D, Sharkas M, Marshall S, Ren J. Breast cancer detection using deep convolutional neural networks and support vector machines. PeerJ. 2019;7(2601):1–23.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arevalo J, González F, Ramos-Pollán R. Convolutional neural networks for mammography mass lesion classification. In: 37th Annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society (EMBC); 2015, pp 797–800.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tian J, Dong D, Liu Z et al. Radiomics in medical imaging-detection, extraction and segmentation. In: Artificial Intelligence in Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis in Medical Imaging. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, vol 140; 2018.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Parmar C, Velazquez E, Leijenaar R, et al. Robust radiomics feature quantification using semiautomatic volumetric segmentation. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ma J, Wang Q, Ren Y, et al. Automatic lung nodule classification with radiomics approach. In: Proceedings of SPIE 9789, medical imaging 2016: PACS and imaging informatics: next generation and innovations, 978906; 2016.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Song Q, Zhao L, Luo X, et al. Using deep learning for classification of lung nodules on computed tomography images. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS®). 3rd ed. Reston: American College of Radiology; 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rangayyan RM, Ayres FJ. Gabor filter and phase portraits for the detection of architectural distortion in mammograms. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2006;44(10):883–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li Q, Sone S, Doi K. Selective enhancement filters for nodules, vessels, and airway walls in two and three-dimensional CT scans. Med Phys. 2003;30(8):2040–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Teramoto A, Fujita H, Yamamuro O, Tamaki T. Automated detection of pulmonary nodules in PET/CT images: ensemble false-positive reduction using a convolutional neural network technique. Med Phys. 2016;43(6):2821–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Teramoto A, Tsujimoto M, Inoue T, et al. Automated classification of pulmonary nodules through a retrospective analysis of conventional CT and two-phase PET images in patients undergoing biopsy. Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol. 2018;7(1):29–37.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yoshikawa R, Teramoto A, Matsubara T, Fujita H. Automated detection of architectural distortion using improved adaptive Gabor filter. International workshop on digital mammography. Cham: Springer; 2014. p. 606–611.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Selvarajah S, Kodituwakku S. Analysis and comparison of texture features for content based image retrieval. Int J Latest Trends Comput. 2011;2(1):108–13.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carlson J. ‘Radiomic' Image Processing Toolbox. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/radiomics/radiomics.pdf. Accessed Nov 2018.
  34. 34.
    Zhou Y, He L, Huang Y, et al. CT-based radiomics signature: a potential biomarker for preoperative prediction of early recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol. 2017;42(6):1695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peduzzi P, Concato J, Kemper E, Holford TR, Feinstein AR. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1373–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Filzmoser P, Liebmann B, Varmuza K. Repeated double cross validation. J Cemometrics. 2009;23:160–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Leijenaar RTH, Carvalho S, Velazquez ER, van Elmpt WJC, Parmar C, Hoekstra OS, Hoekstra CJ, Boellaard R, Dekker ALAJ, Gillies RJ, Aerts HJWL, Lambin P. Stability of FDGPET radiomics features: an integrated analysis of test–retest and inter-observer variability. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(7):1391–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Teramoto A, Yamada A, Kiriyama Y, Tsukamoto T, Yan K, Zhang L, Imaizumi K, Saito K, Fujita H. Automated classification of benign and malignant cells from lung cytological images using deep convolutional neural network. Informatics in Medicine Unlocked. 2019;16:100205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Onishi Y, Teramoto A, Tsujimoto M, et al. Automated pulmonary nodule classification in computed tomography images using a deep convolutional neural network trained by generative adversarial networks. BioMed Res Int. 2019;2019:1–9 (Article ID 6051939).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Society of Radiological Technology and Japan Society of Medical Physics 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Medical SciencesFujita Health UniversityToyoakeJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Health SciencesFujita Health UniversityToyoakeJapan
  3. 3.Aoyama HospitalToyokawaJapan
  4. 4.Department of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringGifu UniversityGifuJapan

Personalised recommendations