Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Efficient Approach for Automated Mass Segmentation and Classification in Mammograms

  • Published:
Journal of Digital Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Breast cancer is becoming a leading death of women all over the world; clinical experiments demonstrate that early detection and accurate diagnosis can increase the potential of treatment. In order to improve the breast cancer diagnosis precision, this paper presents a novel automated segmentation and classification method for mammograms. We conduct the experiment on both DDSM database and MIAS database, firstly extract the region of interests (ROIs) with chain codes and using the rough set (RS) method to enhance the ROIs, secondly segment the mass region from the location ROIs with an improved vector field convolution (VFC) snake and following extract features from the mass region and its surroundings, and then establish features database with 32 dimensions; finally, these features are used as input to several classification techniques. In our work, the random forest is used and compared with support vector machine (SVM), genetic algorithm support vector machine (GA-SVM), particle swarm optimization support vector machine (PSO-SVM), and decision tree. The effectiveness of our method is evaluated by a comprehensive and objective evaluation system; also, Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC) indicator is used. Among the state-of-the-art classifiers, our method achieves the best performance with best accuracy of 97.73 %, and the MCC value reaches 0.8668 and 0.8652 in unique DDSM database and both two databases, respectively. Experimental results prove that the proposed method outperforms the other methods; it could consider applying in CAD systems to assist the physicians for breast cancer diagnosis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, et al: Global cancer statistics. CA: Cancer J Clin 61(2):69–90, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics, 2013. CA: Cancer J Clin 63(1):11–30, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dubey R, Hanmandlu M, Gupta S: A comparison of two methods for the segmentation of masses in the digital mammograms. Comput Med Imaging Graph 34(3):185–191, 2010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Oliver A, et al: A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images. Med Image Anal 14(2):87–110, 2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheng H, et al: Automated breast cancer detection and classification using ultrasound images: A survey. Pattern Recogn 43(1):299–317, 2010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu W-J, Lin S-W, Moon WK: Combining support vector machine with genetic algorithm to classify ultrasound breast tumor images. Comput Med Imaging Graph 36(8):627–633, 2012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lu X, Ma Y, Xie W, et al: Automatic Mass Segmentation Method in mammograms based on improved VFC Snake model. in The 2014 International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition. 2014

  8. Ma Y, Xie W, Wang Z, et al: A level set method for biomedical Image segmentation. in The 2013 International Conference on Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Pattern Recognition. 2013

  9. Mazurowski MA, et al: Mutual information-based template matching scheme for detection of breast masses: From mammography to digital breast tomosynthesis. J Biomed Inform 44(5):815–823, 2011

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nascimento MZD, et al: Classification of masses in mammographic image using wavelet domain features and polynomial classifier. Expert Syst Appl 40(15):6213–6221, 2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Delogu P, et al: Characterization of mammographic masses using a gradient-based segmentation algorithm and a neural classifier. Comput Biol Med 37(10):1479–1491, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moayedi F, et al: Contourlet-based mammography mass classification using the SVM family. Comput Biol Med 40(4):373–383, 2010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wu W.-J., S.-W. Lin, and W.K. Moon: An Artificial Immune System-Based Support Vector Machine Approach for Classifying Ultrasound Breast Tumor Images. J Digit Imaging: p. 1–10, 2014

  14. Cheng H, et al: Approaches for automated detection and classification of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recogn 39(4):646–668, 2006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dong M, Ma Y: Breast cancer diagnosis development research based on morphological characteristics parameters of breast tumor cells. Chin J Clin 7(11):5023–5026, 2013

  16. Issac Niwas S, et al: Analysis of nuclei textures of fine needle aspirated cytology images for breast cancer diagnosis using Complex Daubechies wavelets. Signal Process 93(10):2828–2837, 2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Karakıs R, Tez M, Kılıc YA, et al: A genetic algorithm model based on artificial neural network for prediction of axillary lymph node status in breast cancer. Eng Appl Artif Intell 26(3):945–950, 2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lacson R, et al: Evaluation of an Automated Information Extraction Tool for Imaging Data Elements to Populate a Breast Cancer Screening Registry. J Digit Imaging: p. 1–9, 2014

  19. Bowyer K, et al: The digital database for screening mammography. in Third International Workshop on Digital Mammography. 1996.

  20. Suckling J, et al: The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database. 1994

  21. Starren J, Johnson S.M: Expressiveness of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Database System (BI-RADS). in Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Fall Symposium. : American Medical Informatics Association, 1997

  22. Pawlak Z: Rough set approach to knowledge-based decision support. Eur J Oper Res 99(1):48–57, 1997

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D: Snakes: Active contour models. Int J Comput Vis 1(4):321–331, 1988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li B, Acton ST: Active contour external force using vector field convolution for image segmentation. IEEE Trans Image Process 16(8):2096–2106, 2007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Xu X: Research on detection of breast mass in mammography. Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 2010.

  26. Li, L., et al., False-positive reduction in CAD mass detection using a competitive classification strategy. Medical Physics 28(2):250–258, 2001

  27. Petrick N, et al: Automated detection of breast masses on mammograms using adaptive contrast enhancement and texture classification. Med Phys 23(10):1685–1696, 1996

  28. Catarious Jr, DM: A.H. Baydush, and C.E. Floyd Jr, Characterization of difference of Gaussian filters in the detection of mammographic regions. Med Phys 33(11):4104–4114, 2006

  29. Petrick N, et al: Combined adaptive enhancement and region-growing segmentation of breast masses on digitized mammograms. Med Phys 26(8):1642–1654, 1999

  30. Zheng B, et al: A method to improve visual similarity of breast masses for an interactive computer-aided diagnosis environment. Med Phys 33(1):111–117, 2006

  31. Christoyianni I, Dermatas E, Kokkinakis G: Fast detection of masses in computer-aided mammography. IEEE Signal Proc Mag 17(1):54–64, 2000

  32. Ma Y, Gu X, Wang Y: Histogram similarity measure using variable bin size distance. Comput Vis Image Underst 114(8):981–989, 2010

  33. Melgani F, Bazi Y: Classification of electrocardiogram signals with support vector machines and particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 12(5):667–677, 2008

  34. Breiman L: Random forests. Mach Learn 45(1):5–32, 2001

  35. Friedl MA, Brodley CE: Decision tree classification of land cover from remotely sensed data. Remote Sens Environ 61(3):399–409, 1997

  36. Valdimir V. and N. Vapnik: The nature of statistical learning theory. 1995, Springer

  37. Vapnik VN, Vapnik V: Statistical learning theory, vol. 2. Wiley, New York, 1998

  38. Zhang T: An introduction to support vector machines and other kernel-based learning methods. AI Mag 22(2):103, 2001

  39. Braga-Neto UM, Dougherty ER: Is cross-validation valid for small-sample microarray classification? Bioinformatics 20(3):374–380, 2004

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Science and Engineering, Lanzhou University, No. 222, South Tianshui Road, Lanzhou, Gansu Province, 730000, People’s Republic of China

    Min Dong, Xiangyu Lu, Yide Ma, Yanan Guo, Yurun Ma & Keju Wang

Authors
  1. Min Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiangyu Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yide Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yanan Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yurun Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Keju Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yide Ma.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dong, M., Lu, X., Ma, Y. et al. An Efficient Approach for Automated Mass Segmentation and Classification in Mammograms. J Digit Imaging 28, 613–625 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9778-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-015-9778-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation