Classification of Lobular and Ductal Breast Carcinomas by Texture Analysis in DCE-MRI Data

  • Kai Nie
  • Gabriel Mistelbauer
  • Bernhard Preim
Conference paper
Part of the Informatik aktuell book series (INFORMAT)


Breast cancer can be distinguished into several subtypes, where invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) and invasive lobular carcinomas (ILC) are the two most common subtypes. These two types of tumor grow at a different speed and exhibit different metastatic patterns. Although both types are malignant, they show different treatment results for the same therapy. Accurate distinction between these two subtypes is helpful for determining therapy strategies. In this paper, we classify IDC and ILC based on their characteristic texture features, which are extracted from a three-dimensional co-occurrence matrix. The texture features at different time points are used instead of the features from a single time point. We employ a non-linear support vector machine (SVM) algorithm and a random forests method as classifiers to separate IDC and ILC via their texture features and achieve a high accuracy of the classification result.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Li CI, Anderson BO, Daling JR, et al. Trends in incidence rates of invasive lobular and ductal breast carcinoma. JAMA. 2003;289(11):1421–1424.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen Z, Yang J, Li S, et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a special histological type compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. PLoS One. 2017;12(9).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barroso-Sousa R, Metzger-Filho O. Differences between invasive lobular and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: results and therapeutic implications. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2016;8(4):261–266.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Korkola JE, DeVries S, Fridlyand J, et al. Differentiation of lobular versus ductal breast carcinomas by expression microarray analysis. Cancer Res. 2003;63(21):7167–7175.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holli K, Lääperi AL, Harrison L, et al. Characterization of breast cancer types by texture analysis of magnetic resonance images. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(2):135–141.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nie K, Glaßer S, Niemann U, et al. Classification of DCE-MRI data for breast cancer diagnosis combining contrast agent dynamics and texture features. Procs BVM. 2017; p. 325–330.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preim U, Glaßer S, Preim B, et al. Computer-aided diagnosis in breast DCE-MRIquantification of the heterogeneity of breast lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81(7):1532–1538.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chang RF, Chen HH, Chang YC, et al. Quantification of breast tumor heterogeneity for ER status, HER2 status, and TN molecular subtype evaluation on DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34(6):809–819.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rueckert D, Sonoda LI, Hayes C, et al. Nonrigid registration using free-form deformations: application to breast MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1999;18(8):712–721.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45(1):5–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Simulation and GraphicsOvG University MagdeburgMagdeburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations