Comparison of Pleomorphic and Structural Features Used for Breast Cancer Malignancy Classification
Malignancy of a cancer is one of the most important factors that are taken into consideration during breast cancer. Depending on the malignancy grade the appropriate treatment is suggested. In this paper we make use of the Bloom-Richardson grading system, which is widely used by pathologists when grading breast cancer malignancy. Here we discuss the use of two categories of cells features for malignancy classification. The features are divided into polymorphic features that describe nuclei shapes, and structural features that describe cells ability to form groups. Results presented in this work, show that calculated features present a valuable information about cancer malignancy and they can be used for computerized malignancy grading. To support that argument classification error rates are presented that show the influence of the features on classification. In this paper we compared the performance of Support Vector Machines (SVMs) with three other classifiers. The SVMs presented here are able to assign a malignancy grade based on pre–extracted features with accuracy up to 94.24% for pleomorphic features and with an accuracy 91.33% when structural features were used.
Keywordsmalignancy grading FNA grading breast cancer grading Bloom–Richardson features
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Breast Cancer Society of Canada, www.bcsc.ca
- 2.Bloom, H., Richardson, W.: Histological Grading and Prognosis in Breast Cancer. Br. J. Cancer 11, 359–377 (1957)Google Scholar
- 3.Le Doussal, V., Tubiana-Hulin, M., Friedman, S., Hacene, K., Spyratos, F., Brunet, M.: Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of scarff–bloom–richardson (sbr). an improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 64(9) (1914)Google Scholar
- 5.Li, C., Xu, C., Gui, C., Fox, M.: Level Set Evolution Without Re-initialization: A New Variational Formulation. In: Proc. IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2005, pp. 430–436 (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Street, W.N., Wolberg, W.H., Mangasarian, O.L.: Nuclear Feature Extraction for Breast Tumor Diagnosis. In: IS&T/SPIE 1993 Int. Symp. Elec. Img., San Jose, California, vol. 1905, pp. 861–870 (1993)Google Scholar
- 8.Lee, K., Street, W.: Generalized Hough Transforms with Flexible Templates. In: Proc. ICAI, Las Vegas, NV, vol. 3, pp. 1133–1139 (2000)Google Scholar
- 9.Jeleń, Ł., Krzyżak, A., Fevens, T.: Automated Feature Extraction for Breast Cancer Grading with Bloom-Richardson Scheme. Int. J. CARS 1(1), 468–469 (2006)Google Scholar
- 10.Droske, M., Meyer, B., Rumpf, M., Schaller, K.: An adaptive Level Set Method for Medical Image Segmentation. In: Insana, M.F., Leahy, R.M. (eds.) IPMI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2082, pp. 416–422. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
- 16.Jeleń, Ł., Fevens, T., Krzyżak, A.: Classification of Breast Cancer Malignancy using Cytological Images of Fine Needle Aspiration Biopsies. J. AMCS 18(1) (in press, 2008)Google Scholar
- 17.Zunic, J., Rosin, P.: A Convexity Measurement for Polygons. British Machine Vision Conference 24, 173–182 (2002)Google Scholar
- 18.Friess, T., Cristianini, N., Campbell, C.: The kernel adatron algorithm: a fast and simple learning procedure for support vector machines. In: 15th International Conference on Machine Learning, Morgan Kaufman Publishers, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
- 19.Duda, R., Hart, P., Stork, D.: Pattern Classification, 2nd edn. Wiley Interscience Publishers, New York (2000)Google Scholar