Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 237–247 | Cite as

Level Set Segmentation of Breast Masses in Contrast-Enhanced Dedicated Breast CT and Evaluation of Stopping Criteria

  • Hsien-Chi Kuo
  • Maryellen L. Giger
  • Ingrid Reiser
  • John M. Boone
  • Karen K. Lindfors
  • Kai Yang
  • Alexandra Edwards
Article

Abstract

Dedicated breast CT (bCT) produces high-resolution 3D tomographic images of the breast, fully resolving fibroglandular tissue structures within the breast and allowing for breast lesion detection and assessment in 3D. In order to enable quantitative analysis, such as volumetrics, automated lesion segmentation on bCT is highly desirable. In addition, accurate output from CAD (computer-aided detection/diagnosis) methods depends on sufficient segmentation of lesions. Thus, in this study, we present a 3D lesion segmentation method for breast masses in contrast-enhanced bCT images. The segmentation algorithm follows a two-step approach. First, 3D radial-gradient index segmentation is used to obtain a crude initial contour, which is then refined by a 3D level set-based active contour algorithm. The data set included contrast-enhanced bCT images from 33 patients containing 38 masses (25 malignant, 13 benign). The mass centers served as input to the algorithm. In this study, three criteria for stopping the contour evolution were compared, based on (1) the change of region volume, (2) the average intensity in the segmented region increase at each iteration, and (3) the rate of change of the average intensity inside and outside the segmented region. Lesion segmentation was evaluated by computing the overlap ratio between computer segmentations and manually drawn lesion outlines. For each lesion, the overlap ratio was averaged across coronal, sagittal, and axial planes. The average overlap ratios for the three stopping criteria ranged from 0.66 to 0.68 (dice coefficient of 0.80 to 0.81), indicating that the proposed segmentation procedure is promising for use in quantitative dedicated bCT analyses.

Keywords

3D segmentation Breast Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) Dedicated breast CT 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by NIH grants R01-EB002138 and S10-RR021039. M.L.G. is a stockholder in R2 Technology/Hologic and receives royalties from Hologic, GE 740 Medical Systems, MEDIAN Technologies, Riverain Medical, Mitsubishi and Toshiba. It is the University of Chicago Conflict of Interest Policy that investigators disclose publicly actual or potential significant financial interest that would reasonably appear to be directly and significantly affected by the research activities.

References

  1. 1.
    Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Newell MS, D’Orsi CJ: Dedicated breast computed tomography: the optimal cross-sectional imaging solution? Radiol Clin N Am 48:1043–1054, 2010PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA: To seek perfection or not? That is the question. Radiology 265:9–11, 2012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glick SJ: Breast CT. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 9:501–526, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kalender WA, Beister M, Bioone MJ, Kolditz D, Vollmar VS, Weigel CCM: High-resolution spiral CT of the breast at very low dose: concept and feasibility considerations. Eur Radiol 22:1–8, 2012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Connell A, Conover DL, Zhang Y, Seifert P, Logan-Young W, Lin CFL, Sahler L, Ning R: Cone-beam CT for breast imaging: radiation dose, breast coverage, and image quality. AJR 195:496–509, 2010PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lindfors KK, Boone JM, Nelson TR, Yang K, Kwan ALC, Miller DF: Dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 246:725–733, 2008PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Ray S, Huang S, Beckett LA, Monsky WL, Boone JM: Contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT: initial clinical experience. Radiology 256:714–723, 2010PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reiser I, Joseph SP, Nishikawa RM, Giger ML, Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Edwards A, Packard N, Moore RH, Kopans DB: Evaluation of a 3D lesion segmentation algorithm on DBT and breast CT images. Proc SPIE 7624:76242N, 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kupinsiki M, Giger ML: Automated seeded lesioni segmentation on digital mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17:510–517, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ray S, Prionas ND, Lindfors KK, Boone JM: Analysis of breast CT lesions using computer-aided diagnosis: an application of neural networks on extracted morphologic and texture feature. Proc SPIE 8315:83152E–1, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mancas M, Gosselin B: Fuzzy tumor segmentation based on iterative watersheds. ProcRISC, 2003 (Veldhoven, Netherland)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D: Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vis 1:321–331, 1988CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atkins MS, Mackiewich B: Fully automatic segmentation of the brain in MRI. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 17:98–107, 1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cootes T, Hill A, Taylor C, Haslam J: The use of active shape models for locating structures in medical images. Image Vis Comput 12:355–366, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang J, Staib LH, Duncan JS: Neighbor-constrained segmentation with level set based 3D deformable models. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23:940–948, 2004PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu F, Zhao B, Kijewski PK: Liver segmentation for CT images using GVF snake. Med Phys 32:3699–3706, 2005PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brake GM, Karssemeijer PK: Segemtation of suspicious densities in digital mammograms. Med Phys 28:259–266, 2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sahiner B, Petrick N, Chan H, Hadjiiski LM, Paramagul C, Helvie MA, Curcan MN: Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:1275–1284, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yuan Y, Giger ML, Li H, Suzuki K, Sennett C: A dual-stage method for lesion segmentation on digital mammograms. Med Phys 34:4180–4193, 2007PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osher S, Sethian JA: Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: algorithm based on Hamilton–Jacobi formulations. J Comput Phys 79:12–49, 1998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Caselles V, Catte F, Coll T, Dibos F: A geometrical model for active contours in image processing. Numer Math 66:1–31, 1993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Malladi R, Sethian JA, Vemuri BC: Shape modeling with front propagation: a level set approach. IEEE Trans PAMI 17:158–175, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Li C, Xu C, Gui C, Fox MD: Level set evolution without re-initialization: a new variational formulation. Proc CVPR 1:430–436, 2005Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Adalsteinsson D, Sethian JA: A fast level set method for propagating interfaces. J Comput Phys 118:268–277, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peng D, Merriman B, Osher S, Zhao H, Kang M: A PDE-based fast local level set method. J Comput Phys 155:410–438, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kuo H, Giger ML, Reiser I, Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Yang K, Edwards A: Evaluation of stopping criteria for level set segmentation of breast masses in contrast-enhanced dedicated breast CT. Proc SPIE 8315:83152C, 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hogg RV, Craig A, McKean JW: Introduction to mathematical statistics, 6th edition. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, 2005Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zijdenbos AP, Dawant BM, Margolin RA, Palmer AC: Morphometric analysis of white matter lesions in MR images: method and validation. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13:716–724, 1994PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kuo H, Giger ML, Reiser I, Boone JM, Lindfors KK, Yang K, Edwards A: Level set breast mass segmentation in contrast-enhanced and non-contrast-enhanced breast CT. Proc IWDM LNCS7361:697–704, 2012Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Timp S, Karssemeijer N: A new 2D segmentation method based on dynamic programming applied to computer aided detection in mammography. Med Phys 31:958–971, 2004PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sahiner B, Petrick N, Chan HP, Hadjiiski LM, Paramagul C, Helvie MA, Gurcan MN: Computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses: accuracy of mass segmentation and its effects on characterization. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 20:1275–1284, 2001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zou KH, Warfield SK, Bharatha A, Tempany CMC, Kaus MR, Haker SJ, Wells WM, Jolesz FA, Kikinis R: Statistical validation of image segmentation quality based on a spatial overlap index. Acad Radiol 11:178–189, 2004PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kuo H, Giger ML, Reiser I, Drukker K, Edwards A, Sennett CA: Automatic 3D lesion segmentation on breast ultrasound images. Proc SPIE 8670:867025, 2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hsien-Chi Kuo
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maryellen L. Giger
    • 2
  • Ingrid Reiser
    • 2
  • John M. Boone
    • 3
  • Karen K. Lindfors
    • 3
  • Kai Yang
    • 3
  • Alexandra Edwards
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BioengineeringUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyUniversity of California at DavisSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations