Advertisement

Journal of Digital Imaging

, Volume 31, Issue 5, pp 680–691 | Cite as

Automatic Pectoral Muscle Region Segmentation in Mammograms Using Genetic Algorithm and Morphological Selection

  • Rongbo Shen
  • Kezhou Yan
  • Fen Xiao
  • Jia Chang
  • Cheng Jiang
  • Ke Zhou
Article

Abstract

In computer-aided diagnosis systems for breast mammography, the pectoral muscle region can easily cause a high false positive rate and misdiagnosis due to its similar texture and low contrast with breast parenchyma. Pectoral muscle region segmentation is a crucial pre-processing step to identify lesions, and accurate segmentation in poor-contrast mammograms is still a challenging task. In order to tackle this problem, a novel method is proposed to automatically segment pectoral muscle region in this paper. The proposed method combines genetic algorithm and morphological selection algorithm, incorporating four steps: pre-processing, genetic algorithm, morphological selection, and polynomial curve fitting. For the evaluation results on different databases, the proposed method achieves average FP rate and FN rate of 2.03 and 6.90% (mini MIAS), 1.60 and 4.03% (DDSM), and 2.42 and 13.61% (INBreast), respectively. The results can be comparable performance in various metrics over the state-of-the-art methods.

Keywords

Breast mammography Pectoral muscle region segmentation Genetic algorithm Morphological selection 

References

  1. 1.
    Stewart B, Wild CP, et al (2017) World cancer report 2014, HealthGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization Breast cancer (2017). [Online]. Available: http://www.who.int/cancer/prevention/diagnosis-screening/breast-cancer/en/
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization, et al. (2014) WHO position paper on mammography screening. World Health OrganizationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kwok S, Chandrasekhar R, Attikiouzel Y Automatic pectoral muscle segmentation on mammograms by straight line estimation and cliff detection. In: Intelligent Information Systems Conference, The Seventh Australian and New Zealand 2001. IEEE, 2001, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kwok SM, Chandrasekhar R, Attikiouzel Y, Rickard MT: Automatic pectoral muscle segmentation on mediolateral oblique view mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23 (9): 1129–1140, 2004Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ferrari RJ, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JL, Borges R, Frere AF: Automatic identification of the pectoral muscle in mammograms. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 23 (2): 232–245, 2004Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kinoshita SK, Azevedo-Marques PM, Pereira RR, Rodrigues JAH, Rangayyan RM: Radon-domain detection of the nipple and the pectoral muscle in mammograms. J Digit Imaging 21 (1): 37–49, 2008Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakraborty J, Mukhopadhyay S, Singla V, Khandelwal N, Bhattacharyya P: Automatic detection of pectoral muscle using average gradient and shape based feature. J Digit Imaging 25 (3): 387–399, 2012Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Raba D, Oliver A, Martí J, Peracaula M, Espunya J (2005) Breast segmentation with pectoral muscle suppression on digital mammograms. Pattern Recognition and Image Analysis, pp 153–158Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nagi J, Kareem SA, Nagi F, Ahmed SK Automated breast profile segmentation for ROI detection using digital mammograms. In: 2010 IEEE EMBS conference on biomedical engineering and sciences (IECBES). IEEE, 2010, pp 87–92Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen Z, Zwiggelaar R A combined method for automatic identification of the breast boundary in mammograms. In: 2012 5th International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and Informatics (BMEI). IEEE, 2012, pp 121– 125Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maitra IK, Nag S, Bandyopadhyay SK: Technique for preprocessing of digital mammogram. Comput Methods Prog Biomed 107 (2): 175–188, 2012Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rampun A, Morrow PJ, Scotney BW, Winder J (2017) Fully automated breast boundary and pectoral muscle segmentation in mammograms. Artificial Intelligence in MedicineGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czaplicka K, Włodarczyk H., et al: Automatic breast-line and pectoral muscle segmentation. Schedae Informaticae 2011 (20): 195–209, 2012Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Camilus KS, Govindan V, Sathidevi P: Computer-aided identification of the pectoral muscle in digitized mammograms. J Digit Imaging 23 (5): 562–580, 2010Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Camilus KS, Govindan V, Sathidevi P: Pectoral muscle identification in mammograms. J Appl Clin Med Phys 12 (3): 215–230, 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Liu L, Liu Q, Lu W: Pectoral muscle detection in mammograms using local statistical features. J Digit Imaging 27 (5): 633–641, 2014Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vikhe P, Thool V: Intensity based automatic boundary identification of pectoral muscle in mammograms. Proc. Comput. Sci. 79: 262–269, 2016Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sreedevi S, Sherly E: A novel approach for removal of pectoral muscles in digital mammogram. Proc. Comput. Sci. 46: 1724–1731, 2015Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yoon WB, Oh JE, Chae EY, Kim HH, Lee SY, Kim KG Automatic detection of pectoral muscle region for computer-aided diagnosis using MIAS mammograms. BioMed research international, 2016Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xu W, Li L, Liu W A novel pectoral muscle segmentation algorithm based on polyline fitting and elastic thread approaching. In: 2007 The 1st international conference on bioinformatics and biomedical engineering, 2007. ICBBE. IEEE, 2007, pp 837– 840Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mustra M, Grgic M: Robust automatic breast and pectoral muscle segmentation from scanned mammograms. Signal Process 93 (10): 2817–2827, 2013Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chen C, Liu G, Wang J, Sudlow G: Shape-based automatic detection of pectoral muscle boundary in mammograms. J Med Biol Eng 35 (3): 315–322, 2015Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mustra M, Grgic M, Rangayyan RM: Review of recent advances in segmentation of the breast boundary and the pectoral muscle in mammograms. Med Biol Eng Comput 54 (7): 1003–1024, 2016Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Suckling J, Parker J, Dance D, Astley S, Hutt I, Boggis C, Ricketts I, Stamatakis E, Cerneaz N, Kok S, et al. The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database. In: Exerpta Medica. International Congress Series, vol 1069, 1994, pp 375–378Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ma F, Bajger M, Slavotinek JP, Bottema MJ: Two graph theory based methods for identifying the pectoral muscle in mammograms. Pattern Recogn 40 (9): 2592–2602, 2007Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Iglesias JE, Karssemeijer N: Robust initial detection of landmarks in film-screen mammograms using multiple FFDM atlases. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 28 (11): 1815–1824, 2009Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oliver A, Lladó X, Torrent A, Martí J One-shot segmentation of breast, pectoral muscle, and background in digitised mammograms. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2014, pp 912–916Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zhou C, Wei J, Chan H.-P., Paramagul C, Hadjiiski LM, Sahiner B, Douglas JA: Computerized image analysis: Texture-field orientation method for pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms. Med Phys 37 (5): 2289–2299, 2010Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Masters BR, Gonzalez RC, Woods R: Digital image processing. J sBiomed Opt 14 (2): 029901, 2009Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Otsu N: A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9 (1): 62–66, 1979Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heath M, Bowyer K, Kopans D, Moore R, Kegelmeyer WP The digital database for screening mammography, in Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on digital mammography, Medical Physics Publishing, 2000, pp 212–218Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hammouche K, Diaf M, Siarry P: A multilevel automatic thresholding method based on a genetic algorithm for a fast image segmentation. Comput Vis Image Underst 109 (2): 163–175, 2008Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ergen B (2012) Signal and image denoising using wavelet transform. In: Advances in Wavelet Theory and Their Applications in Engineering, Physics and Technology, InTechGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yen J-C, Chang F-J, Chang S: A new criterion for automatic multilevel thresholding. IEEE Trans Image Process 4 (3): 370–378, 1995Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moreira IC, Amaral I, Domingues I, Cardoso A, Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS: Inbreast: toward a full-field digital mammographic database. Acad Radiol 19 (2): 236–248, 2012Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gower JC: Measures of similarity, dissimilarity and distance. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Johnson and CB Read 5: 397–405, 1985Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gardner A, Kanno J, Duncan CA, Selmic R Measuring distance between unordered sets of different sizes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2014, pp 137–143Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jaccard P: Étude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des alpes et des jura. Bull Soc Vaudoise Sci Nat 37: 547–579, 1901Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kosub S (2016) A note on the triangle inequality for the Jaccard distance. arXiv:1612.02696
  41. 41.
    Henrikson J: Completeness and total boundedness of the Hausdorff metric. MIT Undergraduate J Math 1: 69–80, 1999Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    PyWavelets development team, Pywavelets, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/PyWavelets/pywt

Copyright information

© Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Information Storage System, Wuhan National Laboratory for OptoelectronicsHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Tencent Inc.ShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations