Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 499–505 | Cite as

Malignancy Detection on Mammography Using Dual Deep Convolutional Neural Networks and Genetically Discovered False Color Input Enhancement

  • Philip Teare
  • Michael Fishman
  • Oshra Benzaquen
  • Eyal Toledano
  • Eldad ElnekaveEmail author


Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in the US and the third highest cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Regular mammography screening has been attributed with doubling the rate of early cancer detection over the past three decades, yet estimates of mammographic accuracy in the hands of experienced radiologists remain suboptimal with sensitivity ranging from 62 to 87% and specificity from 75 to 91%. Advances in machine learning (ML) in recent years have demonstrated capabilities of image analysis which often surpass those of human observers. Here we present two novel techniques to address inherent challenges in the application of ML to the domain of mammography. We describe the use of genetic search of image enhancement methods, leading us to the use of a novel form of false color enhancement through contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization (CLAHE), as a method to optimize mammographic feature representation. We also utilize dual deep convolutional neural networks at different scales, for classification of full mammogram images and derivative patches combined with a random forest gating network as a novel architectural solution capable of discerning malignancy with a specificity of 0.91 and a specificity of 0.80. To our knowledge, this represents the first automatic stand-alone mammography malignancy detection algorithm with sensitivity and specificity performance similar to that of expert radiologists.


Deep learning Machine learning Convolutional neural networks Mammography 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

Philip Teare, Eyal Toledano, and Eldad Elnekave are employees of Zebra Medical Vision.

Oshra Benzaquen has no conflicts of interest to disclose.


  1. 1.
    American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2015. Cancer Facts Fig 2015:1–9, 2015Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen T, Yen A, Cohen A, Tot T, Chiu S, Chen S, Fann J, Rosell J, Fohlin H, Smith R, Duffy S, Al E: Swedish two-county trial: impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality during 3 decades - with comments. Radiology 260(3):658–663, 2011CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lauby-Secretan B, Scoccianti C, Loomis D, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Bouvard V, Bianchini F, Straif K: Breast-cancer screening--viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 372(24):2353–2358, 2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kavanagh AM, Giles GG, Mitchell H, Cawson JN: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of screening mammography and symptomatic status. J. Med. Screen. 7(2):105–110, 2000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lehman CD, Wellman RD, Buist DSM, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Screening Mammography With and Without Computer-Aided Detection. JAMA Intern. Med. 175(11):1828–1837, 2015CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Winkler NS, Raza S, Mackesy M, Birdwell RL: Breast density: clinical implications and assessment methods. Radiographics 35(2):316–324, 2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH: Comparison of the Performance of Screening Mammography, Physical Examination, and Breast US and Evaluation of Factors that Influence Them: An Analysis of 27,825 Patient Evaluations. Radiology 225(1):165–175, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, Taplin SH, Sickles EA: Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: A cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 155(8):493–502, 2011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freer TW, Ulissey MJ: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220(3):781–786, 2001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fenton JJ, Xing G, Elmore JG, Bang H, Chen SL, Lindfors KK, Baldwin LM: Short-term outcomes of screening mammography using computer-aided detection a population-based study of medicare enrollees. Ann. Intern. Med. 158(8):580–587, 2013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rao VM, Levin DC, Parker L, Cavanaugh B, Frangos AJ, Sunshine JH: How widely is computer-aided detection used in screening and diagnostic mammography? J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 7(10):802–805, 2010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    M Heath, K Bowyer, D Kopans, R Moore, P Kegelmeyer (2001) “The digital database for screening mammography,” Proc. Fifth Int. Work. Digit. Mammogr., pp. 212–218Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abdel-Zaher AM, Eldeib AM: Breast cancer classification using deep belief networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 46:139–144, 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    J Arevalo, FA González, R Ramos-Pollán, JL Oliveira, MA Guevara Lopez (2015) “Representation learning for mammography mass lesion classification with convolutional neural networks,” Computer Methods and Programs in BiomedicineGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ho, Tin Kam (1995). Random Decision Forests (PDF). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition, Montreal, QC, 14–16 August 1995Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J Deng, W Dong, R Socher, L-J Li, K Li, L Fei-Fei (2009) “ImageNet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in 2009 I.E. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 248–255Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, Poplack SP, Sumkin JH, Halpern EF, Niklason LT: Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 266(1):104–113, 2013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Niklason LT, Hofvind S, Gur D: Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 267(1):47–56, 2013CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee CI, Cevik M, Alagoz O, Sprague BL, Tosteson ANA, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Jarvik JG, Ramsey SD, Lehman CD: Comparative effectiveness of combined digital mammography and tomosynthesis screening for women with dense breasts. Radiology 274(3):772–780, 2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB, Lehrer D, Böhm-Vélez M, Pisano ED, Jong RA, Evans WP, Morton MJ, Mahoney MC, Larsen LH, Barr RG, Farria DM, Marques HS, Boparai K, ACRIN 6666 Investigators: Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA 299(18):2151–2163, 2008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brem RF, Lenihan MJ, Lieberman J, Torrente J: Screening breast ultrasound: past, present, and future. AJR. Am. J. Roentgenol. 204(2):234–240, 2015CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    CK Kuhl, K Strobel, H Bieling, C Leutner, HH Schild, S Schrading (2017) “Supplemental Breast MR Imaging Screening of Women with Average Risk of Breast Cancer,” Radiology, p. 161444Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Helvie MA: Digital Mammography Imaging: Breast Tomosynthesis and Advanced Applications. Radiologic Clinics of North America 48(5):917–929, 2010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zebra Medical Vision LTDShfayimIsrael
  2. 2.Beth Israel Deaconess Medical CenterBostonUSA
  3. 3.Rabin Medical CenterPetach TikvahIsrael

Personalised recommendations