Comparison of Lesion Size Using Area and Volume in Full Field Digital Mammograms

  • Jelena Bozek
  • Michiel Kallenberg
  • Mislav Grgic
  • Nico Karssemeijer
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7361)

Abstract

The size of a lesion is a feature often used in computer-aided detection systems for classification between benign and malignant lesions. However, size of a lesion presented by its area might not be as reliable as volume of a lesion. Volume is more independent of the view (CC or MLO) since it represents three dimensional information, whereas area refers only to the projection of a lesion on a two dimensional plane. Furthermore, volume might be better than area for comparing lesion size in two consecutive exams and for evaluating temporal change to distinguish benign and malignant lesions. We have used volumetric breast density estimation in digital mammograms to obtain thickness of dense tissue in regions of interest in order to compute volume of lesions. The dataset consisted of 382 mammogram pairs in CC and MLO views and 120 mammogram pairs for temporal analysis. The obtained correlation coefficients between the lesion size in the CC and MLO views were 0.70 (0.64-0.76) and 0.83 (0.79-0.86) for area and volume, respectively. Two-tailed z-test showed a significant difference between two correlation coefficients (p=0.0001). The usage of area and volume in temporal analysis of mammograms has been evaluated using ROC analysis. The obtained values of the area under the curve (AUC) were 0.73 and 0.75 for area and volume, respectively. Although a higher AUC value for volume was found, this difference was not significant (p=0.16).

Keywords

digital mammography temporal change lesion classification CAD breast density 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hupse, R., Karssemeijer, N.: Use of normal tissue context in computer-aided detection of masses in mammograms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 28, 2033–2041 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Engeland, S., Snoeren, P.R., Huisman, H., Boetes, C., Karssemeijer, N.: Volumetric breast density estimation from full-field digital mammograms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 25, 273–282 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Timp, S., Karssemeijer, N.: A new 2D segmentation method based on dynamic programming applied to computer aided detection in mammography. Medical Physics 31, 958–971 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sing, T., Sander, O., Beerenwinkel, N., Lengauer, T.: ROCR: visualizing classifier performance in R. Bioinformatics 21, 3940–3941 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.C., Mueller, M.: pROC: an open-source package for R and S+ to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 77 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelena Bozek
    • 1
  • Michiel Kallenberg
    • 2
  • Mislav Grgic
    • 1
  • Nico Karssemeijer
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and ComputingUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyRadboud University Nijmegen Medical CentreNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations