Advertisement

Advanced Medical Imaging Analytics in Breast Cancer Diagnosis

  • Yinlin Fu
  • Bhavika K. Patel
  • Teresa WuEmail author
  • Jing Li
  • Fei Gao
Chapter
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)

Abstract

Modern imaging technique provides a fast, noninvasive means to study physiologic, metabolic, and molecular processes in the body. Imaging is the primary means in clinical cancer practice to facilitate diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment evaluation. While breast cancer contributes to 25% of morbidity in all cancer and is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, it is also one of the most treatable malignancies if detected early. In this chapter, we present an overview of research using advanced imaging analytics tools on Digital Mammography (DM) to improve the sensitivity and specificity of breast cancer detection. Currently, there are two dominating trends in the advanced imaging analytics field: texture analysis and deep learning. We implement three texture analysis algorithms: Gray Level Co-Occurrence Matrix (GLCM), Local binary patterns (LBP), and Gabor Filter and one deep learning network: ResNet. Gradient Boosted Tree (GBT) classifier is then developed on the features to diagnose the lesion as malignant vs. benign. The classifier using texture features from each texture analysis algorithm has an accuracy of 0.82, 0.72, and 0.72 for GLCM, LBP, and Gabor, respectively. If the texture features from different texture analysis algorithms are pooled together, the classifier has an accuracy of 0.81. The same classifier using features extracted from ResNet has an accuracy of 0.89 indicating the potentials of deep learning in medical imaging for disease diagnosis.

Keywords

Breast cancer Digital mammography Texture analysis Deep learning 

References

  1. Abbey CK, Nosrateih A, Sohl-Dickstein J, Yang K, Boone JM (2012) Non-Gaussian statistical properties of breast images. Med Phys 39(11):7121–7130Google Scholar
  2. American College of Radiology (1998) BI-RADS Committee, “breast imaging reporting and data system”. Radiol Clin North Am 40:409–430Google Scholar
  3. Antropova N, Huynh BQ, Giger ML (2017) A deep feature fusion methodology for breast cancer diagnosis demonstrated on three imaging modality datasets. Med Phys 44(10):5162–5171Google Scholar
  4. Arevalo J, González FA, Ramos-Pollán R, Oliveira JL, Guevara Lopez MA (2016) Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 127:248–257Google Scholar
  5. Bar Y, Diamant I, Wolf L, Greenspan H (2015) Deep learning with non-medical training used for chest pathology identification. In: Medical imaging 2015: computer-aided diagnosis, vol 9414, p 94140V. International Society for Optics and PhotonicsGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker AS, Marcon M, Ghafoor S, Wurnig MC, Frauenfelder T, Boss A (2017) Deep learning in mammography diagnostic accuracy of a multipurpose image analysis software in the detection of breast cancer. Investig Radiol 52(7):434–440Google Scholar
  7. Breast Cancer MRI—magnetic resonance imaging | MRI Scan | Imaginis—the women’s health & wellness resource network. [Online]. http://www.imaginis.com/mri-scan/magnetic-resonance-breast-imaging-mri-mr-2. Accessed 23 May 2018
  8. Carneiro G, Nascimento J, Bradley AP (2017) Automated analysis of unregistered multi-view mammograms with deep learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 36(11):2355–2365Google Scholar
  9. Cha KH, Hadjiiski L, Samala RK, Chan H-P, Caoili EM, Cohan RH (2016) Urinary bladder segmentation in CT urography using deep-learning convolutional neural network and level sets. Med Phys 43(4):1882–1896Google Scholar
  10. Choi JY, Ro YM (2012) Multiresolution local binary pattern texture analysis combined with variable selection for application to false-positive reduction in computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms. Phys Med Biol 57(21):7029–7052Google Scholar
  11. Davnall F et al (2012) Assessment of tumor heterogeneity: an emerging imaging tool for clinical practice? Insights Imaging 3(6):573–589Google Scholar
  12. do Nascimento MZ, Martins AS, Neves LA, Ramos RP, Flores EL, Carrijo GA (2013) Classification of masses in mammographic image using wavelet domain features and polynomial classifier. Expert Syst Appl 40(15):6213–6221Google Scholar
  13. Ferrari RJ, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL, Frère AF (2001) Analysis of asymmetry in mammograms via directional filtering with Gabor wavelets. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20(9):953–964Google Scholar
  14. Ferrari RJ, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL, Borges RA, Frère AF (2004) Automatic identification of the pectoral muscle in mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23(2):232–245Google Scholar
  15. Gao F, Zhang M, Wu T, Bennett KM (2016) 3D small structure detection in medical image using texture analysis. In: 2016 38th annual international conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp 6433–6436Google Scholar
  16. Gargouri N, Dammak Masmoudi A, Sellami Masmoudi D, Abid R (2012) A new GLLD operator for mass detection in digital mammograms. Int J Biomed Imaging 2012:765649Google Scholar
  17. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet SMC-3(6):610–621Google Scholar
  18. Hubbard RA, Kerlikowske K, Flowers CI, Yankaskas BC, Zhu W, Miglioretti DL (2011) Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 155(8):481Google Scholar
  19. Huynh BQ, Li H, Giger ML (2016) Digital mammographic tumor classification using transfer learning from deep convolutional neural networks. J Med Imaging 3(3):34501Google Scholar
  20. Jadoon MM, Zhang Q, Haq IU, Butt S, Jadoon A (2017) Three-class mammogram classification based on descriptive CNN features. Biomed Res Int 2017:3640901Google Scholar
  21. Jain AK, Ratha NK, Lakshmanan S (1997) Object detection using gabor filters. Pattern Recogn 30(2):295–309Google Scholar
  22. Jona JB, Nagaveni N (2014) Ant-cuckoo colony optimization for feature selection in digital mammogram. Pak J Biol Sci 17(2):266–271Google Scholar
  23. Kallenberg M et al (2016) Unsupervised deep learning applied to breast density segmentation and mammographic risk scoring. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35(5):1322–1331Google Scholar
  24. Kashyap KL, Bajpai MK, Khanna P (2017) Globally supported radial basis function based collocation method for evolution of level set in mass segmentation using mammograms. Comput Biol Med 87:22–37Google Scholar
  25. Kashyap KL, Bajpai MK, Khanna P, Giakos G (2018) Mesh‐free based variational level set evolution for breast region segmentation and abnormality detection using mammograms. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng 34(1):e2907Google Scholar
  26. Kassner A, Thornhill RE (2010) Texture analysis: a review of neurologic MR imaging applications. Am J Neuroradiol 31(5):809–816Google Scholar
  27. Kooi T, Karssemeijer N (2017) Classifying symmetrical differences and temporal change in mammography using deep neural networks. J Med Imaging (Bellingham) 4(4):044501Google Scholar
  28. Kooi T, van Ginneken B, Karssemeijer N, den Heeten A (2017a) Discriminating solitary cysts from soft tissue lesions in mammography using a pretrained deep convolutional neural network. Med Phys 44(3):1017–1027Google Scholar
  29. Kooi T et al (2017b) Large scale deep learning for computer aided detection of mammographic lesions. Med Image Anal 35:303–312Google Scholar
  30. Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 25th international conference on neural information processing systems, vol 1. Curran Associates Inc., pp 1097–1105Google Scholar
  31. Larroza A, Bodí V, Moratal D (2016) Texture analysis in magnetic resonance imaging: review and considerations for future applications. In: Assessment of cellular and organ function and dysfunction using direct and derived mri methodologies. InTechGoogle Scholar
  32. Lecun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P (1998) Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE 86(11):2278–2324Google Scholar
  33. Lecun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G (2015) Deep learning. Nature 521(7553):436–444Google Scholar
  34. Li Z et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of mammographic texture analysis in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast tumors. Clin Breast Cancer 18(4):e621–e627Google Scholar
  35. Li S et al (2018) Computer-aided assessment of breast density: comparison of supervised deep learning and feature-based statistical learning. Phys Med Biol 63(2):25005MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. Lladó X, Oliver A, Freixenet J, Martí R, Martí J (2009) A textural approach for mass false positive reduction in mammography. Comput Med Imaging Graph 33(6):415–422Google Scholar
  37. Malar E, Kandaswamy A, Chakravarthy D, Giri Dharan A (2012) A novel approach for detection and classification of mammographic microcalcifications using wavelet analysis and extreme learning machine. Comput Biol Med 42(9):898–905Google Scholar
  38. Mascaro AA, Mello CAB, Santos WP, Cavalcanti GDC (2009) Mammographic images segmentation using texture descriptors. In: Proceedings of the 31st annual international conference of the IEEE engineering in medicine and biology society: engineering the future of biomedicine, EMBC 2009, pp 3653–3656Google Scholar
  39. Materka A (2004) Texture analysis methodologies for magnetic resonance imaging. Dialog Clin Neurosci 6(2):243–250Google Scholar
  40. Mohamed AA, Berg WA, Peng H, Luo Y, Jankowitz RC, Wu S (2018a) A deep learning method for classifying mammographic breast density categories. Med Phys 45(1):314–321Google Scholar
  41. Mohamed AA, Luo Y, Peng H, Jankowitz RC, Wu S (2018b) Understanding clinical mammographic breast density assessment: a deep learning perspective. J Digit Imaging 31(4):387–392Google Scholar
  42. Moreira IC, Amaral I, Domingues I, Cardoso A, Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS (2012) INbreast: toward a full-field digital mammographic database. Acad Radiol 19(2):236–248Google Scholar
  43. Muramatsu C, Hara T, Endo T, Fujita H (2016) Breast mass classification on mammograms using radial local ternary patterns. Comput Biol Med 72:43–53Google Scholar
  44. Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Mäenpää T (2001) A generalized local binary pattern operator for multiresolution gray scale and rotation invariant texture classification. Springer, Berlin, pp 399–408zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Oliver A, Lladó X, Freixenet J, Martí J (2007) False positive reduction in mammographic mass detection using local binary patterns. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention : MICCAI ... international conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, vol 10, no. Pt 1, pp 286–93Google Scholar
  46. Purwadi NS, Atay HT, Kurt KK, Turkeli S (2016) Assessment of content-based image retrieval approaches for mammography based on breast density patterns. Stud Health Technol Inf 228:727–731Google Scholar
  47. Rangayyan RM, Nguyen TM, Ayres FJ, Nandi AK (2010) Effect of pixel resolution on texture features of breast masses in mammograms. J Digit Imaging 23(5):547–553Google Scholar
  48. Reyad YA, Berbar MA, Hussain M (2014) Comparison of statistical, LBP, and multi-resolution analysis features for breast mass classification. J Med Syst 38(9):100Google Scholar
  49. Russakovsky O et al (2014) International journal of computer vision. Kluwer Academic, BostonGoogle Scholar
  50. Samala RK, Chan H-P, Hadjiiski L, Helvie MA, Wei J, Cha K (2016) Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography. Med Phys 43(12):6654–6666Google Scholar
  51. Samala RK, Chan H-P, Hadjiiski LM, Helvie MA, Cha K, Richter C (2017) Multi-task transfer learning deep convolutional neural network: application to computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer on mammograms. Phys Med Biol 62(23):8894–8908Google Scholar
  52. Sharma S, Khanna P (2014) Computer-aided diagnosis of malignant mammograms using Zernike moments and SVM. J Digit Imaging 28(1):77–90Google Scholar
  53. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66(1):7–30Google Scholar
  54. Skogen K, Ganeshan B, Good C, Critchley G, Miles K (2013) Measurements of heterogeneity in gliomas on computed tomography relationship to tumour grade. J Neurooncol 111(2):213–219Google Scholar
  55. Tajbakhsh N et al (2016) Convolutional neural networks for medical image analysis: full training or fine tuning? IEEE Trans Med Imaging 35(5):1299–1312Google Scholar
  56. Tan M, Pu J, Zheng B (2014) Reduction of false-positive recalls using a computerized mammographic image feature analysis scheme. Phys Med Biol 59(15):4357–4373Google Scholar
  57. Teare P, Fishman M, Benzaquen O, Toledano E, Elnekave E (2017) Malignancy detection on mammography using dual deep convolutional neural networks and genetically discovered false color input enhancement. J Digit Imaging 30(4):499–505Google Scholar
  58. The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, “Mammogram accuracy—accuracy of mammograms | Susan G. Komen®,” Susan G. Komen, 2017. [Online]. https://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/AccuracyofMammograms.html. Accessed 5 Feb 2018
  59. Törnberg S et al (2006) Breast cancer incidence and mortality in the Nordic capitals, 1970-1998. Trends related to mammography screening programmes. Acta Oncol 45(5):528–535Google Scholar
  60. Tosteson ANA et al (2014) Consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. JAMA Intern Med 174(6):954–961Google Scholar
  61. Wang J, Yang X, Cai H, Tan W, Jin C, Li L (2016) Discrimination of breast cancer with microcalcifications on mammography by deep learning. Sci Rep 6:1–9Google Scholar
  62. Zacharaki EI et al (2009) Classification of brain tumor type and grade using MRI texture and shape in a machine learning scheme. Magn Reson Med 62(6):1609–1618Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yinlin Fu
    • 1
  • Bhavika K. Patel
    • 2
  • Teresa Wu
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jing Li
    • 1
  • Fei Gao
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing, Informatics, Decision Systems Engineering, Ira Fulton Schools of EngineeringArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Division of Breast Imaging, Department of RadiologyMayo ClinicPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations