Abstract
This paper presents an approach to the problem of breast cancer diagnosis through the data analysis of magnetic mammography observations (MRi Data), developing corresponding hybrid classification models of patient cases into specific classes (e.g. Benign and Malignant). The aim of this work is the contribution of machine learning to the diagnostic process of breast cancer, offering a supportive intelligent tool that can be used by expert doctors as a medical decision-making aiding tool. Data were collected in collaboration with expert doctors and consist of 77 patient cases. The development of the presented classification models is a combination of inductive decision trees, clustering and feature selection techniques. Specifically, nine (9) different classification models were developed and evaluated by using statistical criteria, medical expert knowledge and where possible, using the Chi-Square statistical test. The performance achieved is considered encouraging for application in real-world practice, while further research is underway for associating MR imaging data with data from invasive examinations (biopsies).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
World Health Organisation, Latest global cancer data. IARC, 13–15, 2018.
R. Kraus, M. Espy, P. Magnelind, P. Volegov, Ultra-Low Field Nuclear Magnetic Resonance: A New MRI Regime (Oxford University Press)
C.S. Sureka, C. Armpilia, Radiation Biology for Medical Physicists, 1st edn. (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Florida, USA, 2017)
M. B. Amin et al. (eds.), AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edn. (Springer International Publishing, 2017)
A. Aydiner, A. İgci, A. Soran (eds.), Breast Cancer: A Guide to Clinical Practice (Springer International Publishing, 2019)
N.I.R. Yassin, S. Omran, E.M.F. El Houby, H. Allam, Machine learning techniques for breast cancer computer aided diagnosis using different image modalities: a systematic review. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 156, 25–45 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2017.12.012
W. Yue, Z. Wang, H. Chen, A. Payne, X. Liu, Machine Learning with Applications in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis. Designs 2(2), Art. no. 2, June 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs2020013
W.H. Wolberg, O.L. Mangasarian, Multisurface method of pattern separation for medical diagnosis applied to breast cytology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87(23), 9193–9196 (1990)
Y. Wu, M.L. Giger, K. Doi, C.J. Vyborny, R.A. Schmidt, C.E. Metz, Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology 187(1), 81–87 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.187.1.8451441
D. Furundzic, M. Djordjevic, A. Jovicevic Bekic, Neural networks approach to early breast cancer detection. J. Syst. Archit. 44(8), 617–633, April 1998. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-7621(97)00067-2
P.C. Pendharkar, J.A. Rodger, G.J. Yaverbaum, N. Herman, M. Benner, Association, statistical, mathematical and neural approaches for mining breast cancer patterns. Expert Syst. Appl. 17(3), 223–232 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0957-4174(99)00036-6
S.-M. Chou, T.-S. Lee, Y.E. Shao, I.-F. Chen, Mining the breast cancer pattern using artificial neural networks and multivariate adaptive regression splines. Expert Syst. Appl. 27(1), 133–142 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2003.12.013
A. Sadaf, P. Crystal, A. Scaranelo, T. Helbich, Performance of computer-aided detection applied to full-field digital mammography in detection of breast cancers. Eur. J. Radiol. 77(3), 457–461 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.08.024
A. Horsch, A. Hapfelmeier, M. Elter, Needs assessment for next generation computer-aided mammography reference image databases and evaluation studies. Int. J. CARS 6(6), 749 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-011-0553-9
M. Dietzel et al., Artificial neural networks for differential diagnosis of breast lesions in mr-mammography: a systematic approach addressing the influence of network architecture on diagnostic performance using a large clinical database. Eur. J. Radiol. 81(7), 1508–1513 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.03.024
A.E. Hassanien, T. Kim, Breast cancer MRI diagnosis approach using support vector machine and pulse coupled neural networks. J. Appl. Log. 10(4), 277–284 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jal.2012.07.003
J. Milenković, K. Hertl, A. Košir, J. Žibert, J.F. Tasič, Characterization of spatiotemporal changes for the classification of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic-resonance breast lesions. Artif. Intell. Med. 58(2), 101–114 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2013.03.002
P.A.T. Baltzer, M. Dietzel, W.A. Kaiser, A simple and robust classification tree for differentiation between benign and malignant lesions in MR-mammography. Eur. Radiol. 23(8), 2051–2060 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2804-3
S. Hoffmann, J.D. Shutler, M. Lobbes, B. Burgeth, A. Meyer-Bäse, Automated analysis of non-mass-enhancing lesions in breast MRI based on morphological, kinetic, and spatio-temporal moments and joint segmentation-motion compensation technique. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process. 2013(1), 172 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-6180-2013-172
N. Bhooshan et al., Potential of Computer-Aided Diagnosis of High Spectral and Spatial Resolution (HiSS) MRI in the Classification of Breast Lesions. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 39(1), 59–67 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24145
W.A. Weiss, M. Medved, G.S. Karczmar, M.L. Giger, Residual analysis of the water resonance signal in breast lesions imaged with high spectral and spatial resolution (HiSS) MRI: a pilot study. Med. Phys. 41(1), 012303 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4851615
S.C. Agner et al., Computerized image analysis for identifying triple-negative breast cancers and differentiating them from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer on dynamic contrast-enhanced mr images: a feasibility study. Radiology 272(1), 91–99 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14121031
F. Soares, F. Janela, M. Pereira, J. Seabra, M.M. Freire, Classification of breast masses on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images through log detrended fluctuation cumulant-based multifractal analysis. IEEE Syst. J. 8, 929–938 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2013.2284101
Y.-H. Huang, Y.-C. Chang, C.-S. Huang, J.-H. Chen, R.-F. Chang, Computerized breast mass detection using multi-scale hessian-based analysis for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. J Digit Imaging 27(5), 649–660 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-014-9681-4
Q. Yang, L. Li, J. Zhang, G. Shao, B. Zheng, A new quantitative image analysis method for improving breast cancer diagnosis using DCE-MRI examinations. Med Phys 42(1), 103–109 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4903280
A. Gubern-Mérida et al., Automated localization of breast cancer in DCE-MRI. Med. Image Anal. 20(1), 265–274 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2014.12.001
S.A. Waugh et al., Magnetic resonance imaging texture analysis classification of primary breast cancer. Eur. Radiol. 26(2), 322–330 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-3845-6
I. Vidić et al., Support vector machine for breast cancer classification using diffusion-weighted MRI histogram features: preliminary study. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 47(5), 1205–1216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25873
D. Truhn, S. Schrading, C. Haarburger, H. Schneider, D. Merhof, C. Kuhl, Radiomic versus convolutional neural networks analysis for classification of contrast-enhancing lesions at multiparametric breast MRI. Radiology 290(2), 290–297 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018181352
R. Ha et al., Predicting breast cancer molecular subtype with MRI dataset utilizing convolutional neural network algorithm. J Digit Imaging 32(2), 276–282 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-019-00179-2
Y. Ji et al., Independent validation of machine learning in diagnosing breast cancer on magnetic resonance imaging within a single institution. Cancer Imaging, 19, September 2019. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-019-0252-2
N.C. D’Amico et al., A machine learning approach for differentiating malignant from benign enhancing foci on breast MRI. European Radiology Experimental 4(1), 5 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-019-0131-4
S. Ellmann et al., Implementation of machine learning into clinical breast MRI: potential for objective and accurate decision-making in suspicious breast masses. PLoS One 15(1), January 2020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228446
V.S. Parekh et al., Multiparametric deep learning tissue signatures for a radiological biomarker of breast cancer: preliminary results. Med. Phys. 47(1), 75–88 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13849
P. Pandya, P. Jayati, C5. 0 algorithm to improved decision tree with feature selection and reduced rrror pruning. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 117(16), 18–21 (2015). https://doi.org/10.5120/20639-3318
J.R. Quinlan, C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning (Morgan Kaufmann, 1993)
J.R. Quinlan, Generating production rules from decision trees, in Proceedings of the 10th International Joint Conference on Artificial intelligence—Volume 1, San Francisco, CA, USA, August 1987, pp. 304–307. Accessed 23 Aug 2020 [Online]
A. Baratloo, M. Hosseini, A. Negida, G. El Ashal, Part 1: Simple definition and calculation of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. Emerg (Tehran) 3(2), 48–49 (2015)
V. Jaiswal, A. Jitendra, The evolution of the association rules. Int. J. Model. Optim. 2(6), 726–729 (2012)
G.I. Webb, OPUS: an efficient admissible algorithm for unordered search. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 3, 431–465 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.227
P.J. Azevedo, A.M. Jorge, Comparing rule measures for predictive association rules, in Machine Learning: ECML 2007 (Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), pp. 510–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74958-5_47
S. Alvarez, Chi-squared computation for association rules: preliminary results. Technical Report BC-CS-2003–01, July 2003. Accessed 24 August 2020 [Online]. https://www.academia.edu/11560769/Chi_squared_computation_for_association_rules_preliminary_results
C.S. Leong et al., Characterization of breast lesion morphology with delayed 3DSSMT: an adjunct to dynamic breast MRI. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 11(2), 87–96 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(200002)11:2%3c87::AID-JMRI3%3e3.0.CO;2-E
A.G. Sorace et al., Distinguishing benign and malignant breast tumors: preliminary comparison of kinetic modeling approaches using multi-institutional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI data from the International Breast MR Consortium 6883 trial. JMI 5(1), 011019 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JMI.5.1.011019
C.K. Kuhl et al., Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211(1), 101–110 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.211.1.r99ap38101
S.D. Edwards, J.A. Lipson, D.M. Ikeda, J.M. Lee, Updates and revisions to the BI-RADS magnetic resonance imaging Lexicon. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. 21(3), 483–493 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2013.02.005
M. Goto et al., Diagnosis of breast tumors by contrast-enhanced MR imaging: comparison between the diagnostic performance of dynamic enhancement patterns and morphologic features. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 25(1), 104–112 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20812
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Annex 6.1—Abbreviations
Abbreviations | Descriptions |
---|---|
ACR BI-RADS | American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting & Data System |
ADC | Apparent Diffusion Coefficient |
ANN | Artificial Neural Networks |
AUC | Area Under the ROC Curve |
B–ANN | Bayesian Artificial Neural Networks |
CAD | Computer Aided Diagnostic systems |
CHAID | Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection |
CLi Data | Clinical image Data |
CNN | Convolutional Neural Network |
DCE–MRI | Dynamic Contrast–Enhanced Magnetic-Resonance Imaging |
DMi Data | Digital Mammography image Data |
eBP–FNN | error Back Propagation Feed Forward Artificial Neural Networks |
FCM | Fuzzy c-Means |
FFDM | Full Field Mammograms |
FOV | Field of View |
HiSS–MRI | High Spatial and Spectral resolution MRI |
IRi Data | Infrared Thermography image Data |
KNN | K Nearest Neighbor |
LDA | Linear Discriminant Analysis |
LS–SVM | Least-Squares Support Vector Machine |
MARS | Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines |
MCi Data | Microscope image Data |
MRi Data | Magnetic–resonance image Data |
MSM | Multisurface method |
PFK-SVM | Polynomial Kernel Function Support Vector Machine |
RF | Random Forest |
SA | Sparse Autoencoder |
ST | Slice thickness |
SVM | Support Vector Machines |
TNM | T category describes the primary tumor site, N category describes the regional lymph node involvement and M category describes the presence or otherwise of distant metastatic spread (UNICC- Union for International Cancer Control |
TSE | Turbo Spin Echo |
Annex 6.2—Variables Frequency Charts (Original Dataset)
Annex 6.3—Variables’ Values Range
Variables’ values range | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S. no. | Variable | Values | Group | Frequency (N) | Frequency (%) |
1 | AGE | [0, 49] | AGE_1 | 39 | 50.6 |
[50, ∞] | AGE_2 | 38 | 50.4 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
2 | Morphology (MORPH) | MASS | MORPH_1 | 48 | 62.3 |
MASS & NON MASS | MORPH_2 | 2 | 2.6 | ||
NON MASS | MORPH_3 | 27 | 35.1 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
3 | Borders (BDS) | IRR | BDS_1 | 66 | 85.7 |
SPIC | |||||
SMH | BDS_2 | 11 | 14.3 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
4 | Tumor Size (TUMS) | [0, 1.3] | TUMS_1 | 28 | 36.4 |
[1.4, 2.5] | TUMS_2 | 19 | 24.7 | ||
Over 2.6 | TUMS_3 | 30 | 39.0 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
5 | Peritumoral Edema (PRED) | NO | PRED_1 | 50 | 64.9 |
YES | PRED_2 | 27 | 35.1 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
6 | T2 Weighted image (T2-Wi) | NONE | |||
LOW | T2WI_1 | 70 | 90.9 | ||
INTER | |||||
HIGH | T2WI_2 | 7 | 9.1 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
7 | Curve Morphology (CRM) | TYPE_1 | CRM_1 | 14 | 18.2 |
TYPE_2 | CRM_2 | 25 | 32.5 | ||
TYPE_3 | CRM_3 | 38 | 49.4 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
8 | Breast Density (BD) | A | BD_1 | 28 | 36.4 |
B | |||||
B-C | BD _2 | 49 | 63.6 | ||
C | |||||
C-D | |||||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
9 | Background Parenchymal Enhancement (BPE) | MIN | BPE_1 | 52 | 67.5 |
MILD | |||||
MOD | BPE_2 | 25 | 32.5 | ||
MARK | |||||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
10 | Feeding Vessel (FV) | NO | FV_1 | 46 | 59.7 |
YES | FV_2 | 31 | 40.3 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
11 | Internal Enhancement (INTEN) | HOMOG | INTEN_1 | 16 | 20.8 |
INHOMOG | INTEN_2 | 61 | 79.2 | ||
HETER | |||||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
12 | Diffusion (DF) | N/A | DF_1 | 4 | 5.2 |
LOW | DF_2 | 15 | 19.5 | ||
HIGH | DF_3 | 58 | 75.3 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
13 | Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) | N/A | ADC_1 | 4 | 5.2 |
LOW | ADC_2 | 48 | 62.3 | ||
HIGH | ADC_3 | 25 | 32.5 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
14 | Focality (FC) | U | FC_1 | 48 | 62.3 |
MC | FC_2 | 4 | 5.2 | ||
MF | FC_3 | 25 | 32.5 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
15 | Benign or Malignant (BOM) | BENIGN | BOM_1 | 19 | 24.7 |
MALIGNANT | BOM_2 | 58 | 75.3 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
16 | Benign and Malignant (BAM) | BENIGN | BAM_1 | 19 | 24.7 |
DCIS | BAM_2 | 6 | 7.8 | ||
IDC | BAM_3 | 36 | 46.8 | ||
DCIS & IDC | BAM_4 | 9 | 11.7 | ||
ILC | BAM_5 | 6 | 7.8 | ||
SOLID PAPILLARY | BAM_6 | 1 | 1.3 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
17 | Malignan (ML) | DCIS | ML_1 | 6 | 7.8 |
IDC | ML_2 | 32 | 41.6 | ||
DCIS & IDC | ML_3 | 13 | 16.9 | ||
ILC | ML_4 | 6 | 7.8 | ||
SOLID PAPILLARY | ML_5 | 1 | 1.3 | ||
Total | 58 | 75.3 | |||
Missing | System | 19 | 24.7 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
18 | BIRADS | CATEGORY 3 | BIRADS_2 | 36 | 46.8 |
CATEGORY 4 | |||||
CATEGORY 5 | BIRADS_3 | 41 | 53.2 | ||
CATEGORY 6 | |||||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
19 | Tumor Grade (TUMG) | GRADE 1 | TUMG_1 | 3 | 3.9 |
GRADE 2 | TUMG_2 | 25 | 32.5 | ||
GRADE 3 | TUMG_3 | 28 | 36.4 | ||
Total | 56 | 72.7 | |||
Missing | System | 21 | 27.3 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
20 | Estrogen Receptors (ER) | NO | ER_1 | 14 | 18.2 |
YES | ER_2 | 43 | 55.8 | ||
Total | 57 | 74.0 | |||
Missing | System | 20 | 26.0 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
21 | Progesterone Receptors) (PR) | NO | PR_1 | 19 | 24.7 |
YES | PR_2 | 38 | 49.4 | ||
Total | 57 | 7 4.0 | |||
Missing | System | 20 | 26.0 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
22 | Cerb-B2 | NO | CERB2_1 | 29 | 37.7 |
YES | CERB2_2 | 28 | 36.4 | ||
Total | 57 | 74.0 | |||
Missing | System | 20 | 26.0 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 | |||
23 | Ki-67 | [0, 15] | KI67_1 | 22 | 28.6 |
[16, 25] | KI67_2 | 8 | 10.4 | ||
[26, 100] | KI67_3 | 23 | 29.9 | ||
Total | 53 | 68.8 | |||
Missing | System | 24 | 31.2 | ||
Total | 77 | 100 |
Annex 6.4—Classification Tree (Benign or Malignant)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karampotsis, E., Panourgias, E., Dounias, G. (2022). Inductive Machine Learning and Feature Selection for Knowledge Extraction from Medical Data: Detection of Breast Lesions in MRI. In: Tsihrintzis, G.A., Virvou, M., Esposito, A., Jain, L.C. (eds) Advances in Assistive Technologies. Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87132-1_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87132-1_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87131-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87132-1
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)