Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 91–101 | Cite as

Anatomical landmark localization in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging

  • X. X. YinEmail author
  • B. W.-H. Ng
  • Q. Yang
  • A. Pitman
  • K. Ramamohanarao
  • D. Abbott
Original Article


In this article, we present a novel approach to localize anatomical features—breast costal cartilage—in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using level sets. Current breast MRI diagnosis involves magnetic-resonance compatible needles for localization [12]. However, if the breast costal cartilage structure can be used as an alternative to the MR needle, this will not only assist in avoiding invasive procedures, but will also facilitate monitoring of the movement of breasts caused by cardiac and respiratory motion. This article represents a novel algorithm for achieving reliable detection and extraction of costal cartilage structures, which can be used for the analysis of motion artifacts, with possible shape variations of the structure caused by uptake of contrast agent, as well as a potential for the registration of breast. The algorithm represented in this article is to extract volume features from post-contrast MR images at three different time slices for the analysis of motion artifacts, and we validate the current algorithm according to the anatomic structure. This utilizes the level-set method [18] for the size selection of the region of interest. The variable shape of contours acquired from a level-set-based segment image actually determines the feature region of interest, which is used as a guide to achieve initial masks for feature extraction. Following this, the algorithm uses a K-means method for classification of the feature regions from other types of tissue and morphological operations with a choice of an appropriate structuring element to achieve reliable masks and extraction of features. The segments of features can be therefore obtained with the application of extracted masks for subsequent motion analysis of breast and for potential registration purposes.


Feature extraction Costal cartilage Level sets MRI K-means Morphological operations 



This study was supported in part by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project funding scheme—Project No. DP0988064


  1. 1.
    Antoine Maintz JB, Viergever MA (1992) A survey of medical image registration. Comput Surv 24(4):325–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan TF, Vese LA (2001) Active contours without edges. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(2):266–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drake R, Vogl W, Mitchell A (2009) Gray’s Anatomy for Students, 2nd Ed. Elsevier, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frantz S, Rohr K, Stiehl HS (2005) Development and validation of a multi-step approach to improved detection of 3-D point landmarks in tomographic images. Image Vis Comput 23(11):956–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo YJ, Sivaramakrishna R, Lu CC, Suri JS, Laxminarayan S (2006) Breast image registration techniques: a survey. Med Biol Eng Comput 44(1-2):15–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayton P, Brady M, Tarassenko L, Moore N (1997) Analysis of dynamic MR breast images using a model of contrast enhancement. Med Image Anal 1(3):207–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hendrick RE (2008) Breast MRI. Fundamentals and technical aspects. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jonasson L, Hagmann P, Pollo C, Bresson X, Wilson CR, Meuli R, Thiran JP (2007) A level set method for segmentation of the thalamus and its nuclei in DT-MRI. Signal Process 87(2):309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lu WZ, Yao JH, Lu C, Prindiville S, Chow C (2006) DCE-MRI segmentation and motion correction based on active contour model and forward mapping. In: Seventh ACIS international conference on software engineering, artificial intelligence, networking, and parallel/distributed computing, vol 19–20, Las Vegas, pp 208–212Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacQueen JB (1967) Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proceedings of 5th Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 281–297Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malladi R, Sethian J, Vemuri B (1995) Shape modeling with front propagation: a level set approach. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 17(2):158–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morris EA, Liberman L (2005) Breast MRI diagnosis and intervention. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Osher S, Sethian JA (1988) Fronts propagating with curvature-dependent speed: algorithms based on hamilton–jacobi formulations. J Comput Phys 79(1):12–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paragios N, Deriche R (2002) Geodesic active regions: a new framework to deal with frame partition problems in computer vision. J Vis Commun Image Represent 13(1-2):249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Serra J (1982) Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shechter G, Resar JR, McVeigh ER (2006) Displacement and velocity of the coronary arteries: cardiac and respiratory motion. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 25:369–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sinha S, Sinha U (2009) Recent advances in breast MRI and MRS. NMR Biomed 22(1):3–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang Y, Matuszewski BJ, Shark LK, Moore CJ (2008) Medical image segmentation using new hybrid level-set method. In: Proceeding of the fifth international conference on bioMedical visualization, Applied Digital Signal and Image Processing Research centre, pp 71–76Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhukov L, Museth K, Breen D, Whitakery R, Barr AH (2003) Level set modeling and segmentation of DT-MRI brain data. J Electron Imaging 12(1):125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Federation for Medical and Biological Engineering 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • X. X. Yin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • B. W.-H. Ng
    • 1
  • Q. Yang
    • 3
  • A. Pitman
    • 4
  • K. Ramamohanarao
    • 2
  • D. Abbott
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Biomedical Engineering, School of Electrical & Electronic EngineeringThe University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, The Melbourne School of EngineeringThe University of MelbourneMelbourne Australia
  3. 3.Apollo Medical Imaging Technology Pty. Ltd.North MelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Anatomy and Cell BiologyThe University of Melbourne and Sydney School of Medicine, The University of Notre DameMelbourne Australia

Personalised recommendations