Automatic Mass Detection from Mammograms with Region-Based Convolutional Neural Network

  • Yifan Wu
  • Weifeng Shi
  • Lei CuiEmail author
  • Hongyu Wang
  • Qirong BuEmail author
  • Jun Feng
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 875)


Automatic detection of breast mass from mammograms is a challenging task. Recently, Convolution Neural Networks (CNNs) have been proposed to address this task. However, the performance of these CNN-based detection methods is still limited due to high complexity of breast tissue and varying shape of masses. An Automatic Mass Detection framework with Region-based CNN (AMDR-CNN) is presented in this paper, aiming to efficiently exploit informative features from mammograms. Under a hierarchical candidate mass region generation method with a full-size mammogram, the mammogram is greatly simplified and high-quality region proposals are generated. Then, a deeper CNN is introduced, which simultaneously predicts object bounds and scores at each position. In contrast to previous works, the deeper CNN learns the effective features of mass as well as helps produce accurate detection results. The experiments are performed on two public datasets, which achieves a better performance than state-of-the-art algorithms.


Mammogram Mass detection Region proposal Convolutional neural network 


  1. 1.
    Ferlay, J., Héry, C., Autier, P., Sankaranarayanan, R.: Global burden of breast cancer. In: Li, C. (ed.) Breast Cancer Epidemiology, pp. 1–19. Springer, New York (2010). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Broeders, M., et al.: The impact of mammography screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies. J. Med. Screen. 19(suppl 1), 14–25 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tabar, L., et al.: Mammography service screening and mortality in breast cancer patients: 20-year follow-up before and after introduction of screening. Lancet 361(9367), 1405–1410 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Elmore, J.G., et al.: Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists’ characteristics associated with accuracy1. Breast Dis. Year Book Q. 21(4), 330–332 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barlow, W.E., et al.: Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 97(12), 1840–1850 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brewer, N., Salz, T., Lillie, S.E.: Systematic review: the long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Ann. Intern. Med. 147(10), 739–740 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Myers, E.R., et al.: Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA 314(15), 1615 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., Hinton, G.E.: ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    He, K., et al.: Delving deep into rectifiers: surpassing human-level performance on ImageNet classification, pp. 1026–1034 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kooi, T., et al.: Large scale deep learning for computer aided detection of mammographic lesions. Med. Image Anal. 35, 303–312 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Becker, A.S., et al.: Deep learning in mammography: diagnostic accuracy of a multipurpose image analysis software in the detection of breast cancer. Investig. Radiol. 52(7), 434 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., Bradley, A.P.: Fully automated classification of mammograms using deep residual neural networks. In: IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lotter, W., Sorensen, G., Cox, D.: A multi-scale CNN and curriculum learning strategy for mammogram classification. In: Cardoso, M.J. (ed.) DLMIA/ML-CDS -2017. LNCS, vol. 10553, pp. 169–177. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moreira, I.C., et al.: INbreast: toward a full-field digital mammographic database. Acad. Radiol. 19(2), 236–248 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ertosun, M.G., Rubin, D.L.: Probabilistic visual search for masses within mammography images using deep learning. In: IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine, pp. 1310–1315. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Arevalo, J., et al.: Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 127(C), 248–257 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Girshick, R., Donahue, J., Darrell, T., Malik, J.: Rich feature hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation. In: IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Szegedy, C., et al.: Inception-v4, Inception-ResNet and the impact of residual connections on learning (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ren, S., et al.: Faster R-CNN: towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In: International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Girshick, R.: Fast R-CNN. In: IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kozegar, E., et al.: Assessment of a novel mass detection algorithm in mammograms. J. Cancer Res. Ther. 9(4), 592 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eltonsy, N.H., Tourassi, G.D., Elmaghraby, A.S.: A concentric morphology model for the detection of masses in mammography. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. 26(6), 880 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sampat, M.P., et al.: A model-based framework for the detection of spiculated masses on mammography. Med. Phys. 35(5), 2110–2123 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dhungel, N., Carneiro, G., Bradley, A.P.: Automated mass detection in mammograms using cascaded deep learning and random forests. In: International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Campanini, R., Dongiovanni, D., Iampieri, E., et al.: A novel featureless approach to mass detection in digital mammograms based on support vector machines. Phys. Med. Biol. 49(6), 961–975 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Science and TechnologyNorthwest UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations