Mammographic Risk Assessment Based on Anatomical Linear Structures

  • Edward M. Hadley
  • Erika R. E. Denton
  • Reyer Zwiggelaar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4046)


Mammographic risk assessment is concerned with the probability of a woman developing breast cancer. Recently, it has been suggested that the density of linear structures is related to risk. For 321 images from the MIAS database, a measure of line strength was obtained for each pixel using the Line Operator method. The proportion of pixels with line strength above a threshold level was calculated for each image and the results categorised by Tabar pattern, Boyd SCC class and BIRADS class. The results indicated a significant difference between Boyd classes 1–3 (low risk) and classes 4–6 (high risk), and between most Tabar patterns and BIRADS classes.


Linear Structure Linear Density Line Operator Line Strength High Risk Class 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wolfe, J.N.: Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37(5), 2486–2492 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kolb, T.M., Lichy, J., Newhouse, J.H.: 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 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tabar, L., Dean, P.B.: Mammographic parenchymal patterns. risk indicator for breast cancer? Journal of the American Medical Association 247(2), 185–189 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gram, I.T., Funkhouser, E., Tabar, L.: The Tabar classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns. European Journal of Radiology 24(2), 131–136 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tabar, L., Tot, T., Dean, P.B.: Breast Cancer - The Art and Science of Early Detection with Mammography. Georg Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boyd, N.F., Byng, J.W., Jong, R.A., Fishell, E.K., Little, L.E., Miller, A.B., Lockwood, G.A., Tritchler, D.L., Yaffe, M.J.: Quantitative classification of mammographic densities and breast cancer risk: results from the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87, 670–675 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    American College of Radiology: Illustrated Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 3rd edn. American College of Radiology (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dixon, R.N., Taylor, C.J.: Automated asbestos fibre counting. Institute of Physics Conference Series, vol. 44, pp. 178–185 (1979)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zwiggelaar, R., Astley, S.M., Boggis, C.R.M., Taylor, C.J.: Linear structures in mammographic images: Detection and classification. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 23(9), 1077–1086 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Muhimmah, I., Oliver, A., Denton, E.R.E., Pont, J., Perez, E., Zwiggelaar, R.: Comparison between wolfe, boyd, bi-rads and tabar based mammographic risk assessment. In: Astley, S.M., Brady, M., Rose, C., Zwiggelaar, R. (eds.) IWDM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4046, pp. 407–415. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward M. Hadley
    • 1
  • Erika R. E. Denton
    • 2
  • Reyer Zwiggelaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WalesAberystwythUK
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyNorfolk and, Norwich University HospitalUK

Personalised recommendations