A Tree Classifier for Automatic Breast Tissue Classification Based on BIRADS Categories

  • Noelia Vállez
  • Gloria Bueno
  • Oscar Déniz-Suárez
  • José A. Seone
  • Julián Dorado
  • Alejandro Pazos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6669)

Abstract

Breast tissue density is an important risk factor in the detection of breast cancer. It is also known that interpretation of mammogram lesions is more difficult in dense tissues. Therefore, getting a preliminary tissue classification may aid in the subsequent process of breast lesion detection and analysis. This article reviews several classification techniques for two datasets, both digitized screen-film (SFM) and full-field digital (FFDM) mammography, classified according to BIRADS categories. It concludes with a tree classification procedure based on the combination of two classifiers on texture features. Statistical analysis to test the normality and homoscedasticity of the features was carried. Thus, just features that are significant influenced by the tissue type were considered. The results obtained on 322 mammograms of the SFM dataset and on 1137 mammograms of the FFDM dataset demonstrate that up to 80% of samples were correctly classified using using 10-fold cross-validation to train and test the classifiers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ursin, G., Hovanessian-Larsen, L., Parisky, Y.R., et al.: Greatly increased occurrence of breast cancers in areas of mammographically dense tissue. Breast Cancer Research 7(5), 605–608 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brem, R., Hoffmeister, J., Rapelyea, J., et al.: Impact of breast density on CAD for breast cancer. American Journal of Roentgenology 184, 439–444 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolfe, J.N.: Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37, 2486–2492 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oliver, A., Freixenet, J., Martí, R., et al.: A novel breast tissue density classification methodology. IEEE Trans. on Inform. Techn. in Biomed. 12, 55–65 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parthalain, N.M., Jensen, R., Shen, Q., Zwiggelaar, R.: Fuzzy-rough approaches for mammographic risk analysis. Intelligent Data Analysis 14, 225–244 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yafee, M., Boyd, N.: Mammographic breast density and cancer risk: The radiological view. Gynecological Endocrinology 21(S1), 6–11 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Harvey, J., Bovbjerg, V.: Quantitative Assessment of Mammographic Breast Density: Relationship with Breast Cancer Risk. Radiology 230(1), 29–41 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bovis, K., Singh, S.: Classification of mammographic breast density using a combined classifier paradigm. In: 4th IWDM, pp. 177–180 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suckling, J., Partner, J., Dance, D.R., et al.: The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database. In: IWDM, pp. 211–221 (1994)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petroudi, S., Kadir, T., Brady, M.: Automatic classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns: A statistical approach. In: Proc. IEEE Conf. Eng. Med. Biol. Soc., vol. 1, pp. 798–801 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noelia Vállez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gloria Bueno
    • 1
  • Oscar Déniz-Suárez
    • 1
  • José A. Seone
    • 2
  • Julián Dorado
    • 2
  • Alejandro Pazos
    • 2
  1. 1.VISILAB, E.T.S.I.IUniversidad de Castilla-La ManchaSpain
  2. 2.RNASA-IMEDIRUniversidade a CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations