A Comparison of Breast Tissue Classification Techniques

  • Arnau Oliver
  • Jordi Freixenet
  • Robert Martí
  • Reyer Zwiggelaar
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4191)


It is widely accepted in the medical community that breast tissue density is an important risk factor for the development of breast cancer. Thus, the development of reliable automatic methods for classification of breast tissue is justified and necessary. Although different approaches in this area have been proposed in recent years, only a few are based on the BIRADS classification standard. In this paper we review different strategies for extracting features in tissue classification systems, and demonstrate, not only the feasibility of estimating breast density using automatic computer vision techniques, but also the benefits of segmentation of the breast based on internal tissue information. The evaluation of the methods is based on the full MIAS database classified according to BIRADS categories, and agreement between automatic and manual classification of 82% was obtained.


Breast Tissue Breast Density Fractal Approach Digital Mammogram Breast Area 
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.


  1. 1.
    Eurostat: Health statistics atlas on mortality in the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Birdwell, R., Ikeda, D., O’Shaughnessy, K., Sickles, E.: Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. Radiology 219, 192–202 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freer, T., Ulissey, M.: Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: Prospective study of 12860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 220, 781–786 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ho, W., Lam, P.: Clinical performance of computer-assisted detection (CAD) system in detecting carcinoma in breasts of different densities. Clinical Radiology 58, 133–136 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolfe, J.: Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37, 2486–2492 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller, P., Astley, S.: Classification of breast tissue by texture analysis. Image and Vision Computing 10, 277–282 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Karssemeijer, N.: Automated classification of mammographic parenchymal pattern. Physics in Medicine and Biology 28, 365–378 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bovis, K., Singh, S.: Classification of mammographic breast density using a combined classifier paradigm. In: Proc. Medical Image Understanding and Analysis, pp. 177–180 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Petroudi, S., Kadir, T., Brady, M.: Automatic classification of mammographic parenchymal patterns: A statistical approach. In: IEEE Int. Conf. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 1, pp. 798–801 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Oliver, A., Freixenet, J., Zwiggelaar, R.: Automatic classification of breast density. In: IEEE Int. Conf. on Image Processing, vol. 2, pp. 1258–1261 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bosch, A., Muñoz, X., Oliver, A., Martí, J.: Modeling and classifying breast tissue density in mammograms. In: IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, vol. 2, pp. 1552–1558 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Raba, D., Oliver, A., Martí, J., Peracaula, M., Espunya, J.: Breast segmentation with pectoral muscle suppression on digital mammograms. In: Marques, J.S., Pérez de la Blanca, N., Pina, P. (eds.) IbPRIA 2005. LNCS, vol. 3523, pp. 471–478. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raba, D., Martí, J., Martí, R., Peracaula, M.: Breast mammography asymmetry estimation based on fractal and texture analysis. In: Proc. Computed Aided Radiology and Surgery, Berlin, Germany (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belhumeur, P., Hespanha, J., Kriegman, D.: Eigenfaces vs Fisherfaces: Recognition using class specific linear projection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 19, 711–720 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haralick, R., Shanmugan, K., Dunstein, I.: Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 3, 610–621 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Duda, R., Hart, P., Stork, D.: Pattern Classification, 2nd edn. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2001)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quinlan, J.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Suckling, J., Parker, J., Dance, D., Astley, S., Hutt, I., Boggis, C., Ricketts, I., Stamatakis, E., Cerneaz, N., Kok, S., Taylor, P., Betal, D., Savage, J.: The Mammographic Image Analysis Society digital mammogram database. In: International Workshop on Digital Mammography, pp. 211–221 (1994)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen, J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20, 27–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arnau Oliver
    • 1
  • Jordi Freixenet
    • 1
  • Robert Martí
    • 1
  • Reyer Zwiggelaar
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Informatics and ApplicationsUniversity of GironaGironaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of WalesAberystwythUK

Personalised recommendations