Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 74, Issue 11, pp 3783–3798 | Cite as

Fourier irregularity index: A new approach to measure tumor mass irregularity in breast mammogram images

  • Gensheng Zhang
  • Wei Wang
  • Sung Shin
  • Carrie B. Hruska
  • Seong-Ho Son
Article

Abstract

Shape descriptors have been identified as important features in distinguishing malignant masses from benign masses. Thus, an effective morphological irregularity measure could provide a helpful reference to indicate the likelihood of malignancy of breast masses. In this paper, a new Fourier-Transform-based measure of irregularity—Fourier Irregularity Index (F 2 ), is proposed to provide reliable malignant/benign tumor/mass classification. The proposed measure has been evaluated on 418 breast masses, including 190 malignant masses and 218 benign lesions identified by radiologists on film mammograms. The results show the proposed measure has better performance than other approaches, such as Compactness Index (CI), Fractal Dimension (FD) and the Fourier-descriptor-based shape Factor (FF). Furthermore, these mentioned measures are paired to investigate the possibility of performance improvement. The results showed the combination of F 2 and CI further enhances the performance in indicating the likelihood of malignancy of breast masses.

Keywords

Breast masses classification Contour analysis Fourier Transform Irregularity index 

References

  1. 1.
    Alto H, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL (2005) Content-based retrieval and analysis of mammographic masses. J Electron Imaging 14:023016–023016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Orsi C, Bassett LW, Berg W, Feig S, Jackson V, Kopans D (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS-mammography. American College of Radiology (ACR), RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davies D, Dance D (1990) Automatic computer detection of clustered calcifications in digital mammograms. Phys Med Biol 35:1111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dey P, Mohanty SK (2003) Fractal dimensions of breast lesions on cytology smears. Diagn Cytopathol 29:85–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freeman H (1961) On the encoding of arbitrary geometric configurations. IRE Trans Electron Comput EC-10:260–268CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guo Q, Ruiz V, Shao J, Guo F (2005) A novel approach to mass abnormality detection in mammographic images. In: Proceedings of the IASTED International Conference on Biomedical Engineering, pp 180–185Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, Moore R, Kegelmeyer WP (2001) The digital database for screening mammography. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Digital Mammography, pp 212–218Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kilday J, Palmieri F, Fox MD (1993) Classifying mammographic lesions using computerized image analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 12:664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwon K-C, Lim Y-T, Kim C-H, Kim N, Park C, Yoo K-H, Son S-H, Jeon S-I (2012) Microwave tomography analysis system for breast tumor detection. J Med Syst 36:1757–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee TK, McLean DI, Atkins MS (2003) Irregularity index: a new border irregularity measure for cutaneous melanocytic lesions. Med Image Anal 7:47–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liang S, Rangaraj MR, Desautels J (1993) Detection and classification of mammographic calcifications. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 7:1403–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman J, Morris E, Dershaw D (1998) The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. Am J Roentgenol 171:35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Matsubara T, Fujita H, Kasai S, Goto M, Tani Y, Hara T, Endo T (1997) Development of new schemes for detection and analysis of mammographic masses, pp 63–66Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peitgen HO, Jürgens H, Saupe D (2004) Chaos and fractals: new frontiers of science. Springer VerlagGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pohlman S, Powell KA, Obuchowski NA, Chilcote WA, Grundfest-Broniatowski S (1996) Quantitative classification of breast tumors in digitized mammograms. Med Phys 23:1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rangayyan RM, El-Faramawy N, Desautels JEL, Alim OA (1997) Measures of acutance and shape for classification of breast tumors. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 16:799–810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rangayyan RM, Mudigonda NR, Desautels JEL (2000) Boundary modelling and shape analysis methods for classification of mammographic masses. Med Biol Eng Comput 38:487–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rangayyan RM, Nguyen TM (2007) Fractal analysis of contours of breast masses in mammograms. J Digit Imaging 20:223–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salzberg S (1997) On comparing classifiers: pitfalls to avoid and a recommended approach. Data Min Knowl Disc 1:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shen L, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL (1994) Application of shape-analysis to mammographic calcifications. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spiesberger W (1979) Mammogram inspection by computer. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng BME-26(4):213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wee WG, Moskowitz M, Chang NC, Ting YC, Pemmeraju S (1975) Evaluation of mammographic calcifications using a computer program. Radiology 116:717–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wei Y, Su Z, Yazhu C, Yaqing C, Wenying L, Hongtao L (2008) Effective shape measures in malignant risk assessment for breast tumor on sonography. In: International Multisymposiums on Computer and Computational Sciences. IMSCCS ‘08, pp 51–56Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wikipedia (2012) Fourier series. Available: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series
  25. 25.
    Xiangyang X, ShengZhou X, Lianghai J, Shenyi Z (2010) Using PSO to improve dynamic programming based algorithm for breast mass segmentation. In: 2010 I.E. Fifth International Conference on Bio-Inspired Computing: Theories and Applications (BIC-TA), pp 485–488Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zabrodsky H, Peleg S, Avnir D (1995) Symmetry as a continuous feature. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 17:1154–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang G, Shin S, Wang W, Li Z, Choi H. A new Fourier-based approach to measure irregularity of breast masses in mammograms. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Research in Applied Computation Symposium (RACS ‘12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 153–157Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang G, Wang W, Moon J, Pack JK, Jeon SI. A review of breast tissue classification in mammograms. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on Research in Applied Computation (RACS ‘11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 232–237Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gensheng Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wei Wang
    • 3
  • Sung Shin
    • 3
  • Carrie B. Hruska
    • 4
  • Seong-Ho Son
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of Texas at ArlingtonArlingtonUSA
  2. 2.South Dakota State UniversityBrookingsUSA
  3. 3.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceSouth Dakota State UniversityBrookingsUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  5. 5.Radio Technology Research DepartmentElectronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)DaejeonKorea

Personalised recommendations