Quality of Microcalcification Segmentation in Mammograms by Clustering Algorithms

  • Ramón O. Guardado-Medina
  • Benjamín Ojeda-Magaña
  • Joel Quintanilla-Domínguez
  • Rubén Ruelas
  • Diego Andina
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 239)

Abstract

Breast cancer remains a leading cause of death among women worldwide. Mammography is one of the non-invasive methods to find breast tumors, which is very useful in the detection of cancer. Microcalcifications are one of the anomalies of this disease, and these appear as small white spots on the images. Several computer-aided systems (CAD) have been developed for the detection of anomalies related to the disease. However, one of the critical parts is the segmentation process, as the rate of detection of anomalies in the breast by mammography largely depends on this process. In addition, a low detection endangers women’s lives, while a high detection of suspicious elements have excessive cost. Hence, in this work we do a comparative study of segmentation algorithms, specifically three of them derived from the family of c-Means, and we use the NU (Non-Uniformity) measure as a quality indicator of segmentation results. For the study we use 10 images of the MIAS database, and the algorithms are applied to the regions of interest (ROI). Results are interesting, the novel method of sub-segmentation allows continuous and gradual adjustment, which is better adapted to the regions of micro calcification, and this results in smaller NU values. The NU measure can be used as an indication of quality, which depends on the number of pixels and the homogeneity of the segmented regions, although it should be put in the context of the application to avoid making misinterpretations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pham, D.L., Xu, C., Prince, J.L.: A Survey of Current Methods in Medical Image Segmentation. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 2(4), 315–338 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sampat, P.M., Markey, M.K., Bovik, A.C.: Computer-aided detection and diagnosis in mammography. In: Bovik, A.C. (ed.) Handbook of Image and Video Processing, 2nd edn., pp. 1195–1217. Academic Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee, N., Laine, A.F., Marquez, G., Levsky, J.M., Gohagan, J.K.: Potential of computer-aided diagnosis to improve CT lung cancer screening. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2, 136–146 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hernandez-Cisnero, R.R., Terashima-Marn, H.: Evolutionary neural networks applied to the classification of microcalcification clusters in digital mammograms. Proc. IEEE Congr. Evol. Comput., 2459–2466 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tang, J., Rangayyan, R.M., Xu, J., El Naga, I., Yang, Y.: Computeraided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer with mammography: Recent advances. IEEE Trans. Inf. Technol. Biomed. 13(2), 236–251 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bocciglione, G., Chainese, A., Picariello, A.: Computer aided detection of microcalcifications in digital mammograms. Comput. Biol. Med. 30(5), 267–286 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gonzalez, R.C., Woods, R.E.: Digital Image Processing, 2nd edn. Publishing House of Electronics Industry, Beijing (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, Y.J.: A survey on evaluation methods for image segmentation. Pattern Recogn. 29(8), 1335–1346 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MacQueen, J.B.: Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In: Proc. 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, pp. 281–297. University of California Press, Berkeley (1967)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bezdek, J.C., Keller, J., Krishnapuram, R., Pal, N.R.: Fuzzy models and algorithms for pattern recognition and image processing, Boston, London (1999)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jain, A.K., Dubes, R.C.: Algorithms for Clustering Data. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Runkler, T.A.: Ant colony optimization of clustering models. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 20(12), 1233–1251 (2005)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dunn, J.C.: A fuzzy relative of the ISODATA process and its use in detecting compact well-separated clusters. J. Cybernetics 3(3), 32–57 (1973)MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bezdek, J.C.: Pattern Recognition with Fuzzy Objective Function Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell (1981)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pal, N.R., Pal, K., Keller, J.M., Bezdek, J.C.: A possibilitic fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm. IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst. 13(4), 517–530 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dengler, J., Behrens, S., Desega, J.F.: Segmentation of Microcalcifications in Mammograms. IEEE T. Med. Imaging 12(4), 634–642 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Serra, J.: Images analysis and mathematical morphological. Academic Press, New York (1982)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pal, N., Pal, S.: A review on image segmentation techniques. IEEE T. Fuzzy Syst. 13(4), 517–530 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fu, J., Lee, S., Wong, S., Yeh, J., Wang, A., Wu, H.: Image segmentation feature selection and pattern classification for mammographic microcalcifications. Med. Imag. Grap. 29(6), 419–429 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ojeda-Magaña, B., Quintanilla-Domínguez, J., Ruelas, R., Andina, D.: Images sub-segmentation with the PFCM clustering algorithm. In: Proc. 7th IEEE Int. Conf. Industrial Informatics, pp. 499–503 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramón O. Guardado-Medina
    • 1
  • Benjamín Ojeda-Magaña
    • 1
  • Joel Quintanilla-Domínguez
    • 2
  • Rubén Ruelas
    • 1
  • Diego Andina
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Sistemas de Información CUCEAUniversidad de GuadalajaraZapopanMéxico
  2. 2.E.T.S.I. de TelecomunicaciónUniversidad Politécnica de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations