Digital Mammogram and Tumour Detection Using Fractal-Based Texture Analysis: A Box-Counting Algorithm

  • K. C. Latha
  • S. Valarmathi
  • Ayesha Sulthana
  • Ramya Rathan
  • R. Sridhar
  • S. Balasubramanian
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 236)


Mammography and X-ray imaging of the breast are considered as the mainstay of breast cancer screening. In the past several years, there has been tremendous interest in image processing and analysis techniques in mammography. The fractal is an irregular geometric object with an infinite nesting of structure of different sizes. Fractals can be used to make models of any objects. The most important properties of fractals are self-similarity, chaos, and non-integer fractal dimension. The fractal dimension analysis has been applied to study the wide range of objects in biology and medicine and has been used to detect small tumors, microcalcification in mammograms, tumors in brain, and to diagnose blood cells and human cerebellum. Fractal theory also provides an appropriate platform to build oncological-related software program because the ducts within human breast tissue have fractal properties. Fractal analysis of mammogram was used for the breast parenchymal density assessment. The fractal dimension of the surface is determined by utilizing the Box-counting method. The Mammograms were collected from HCG Hospital, Bangalore. In this study, a method was developed in the Visual Basic for extracting the suspicious region from the mammogram based on texture. The fractal value obtained through Box-counting method for benign and malignant breast cancer is combined into a set. An algorithm was used to calculate the fractal value for the extracted image of the mammogram using Box-counting method.


Fractal dimension Box-counting algorithm Mammogram  Benign Malignant Range and pixel based algorithms 


  1. 1.
    Buczko, W., Mikolajczak, D.C.: Shape analysis of MR brain images based on the fractal dimension. Annales UMCS Informatica (AI) 3, 153–158 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Georgsson, F., Jansson, S., Olsen, C.: Fractal analysis of mammograms. In: Ersboll, B.K., Pedersen, K.S. (eds.) SCIA, LNCS, vol, pp. 92–101. 4522. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baish, J.W., Jain, R.K.: Fractals and cancer. Cancer Res. 60, 3683–3688 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mandelbrot, B.B.: How long is the coast of britain? statistical self-similarity and fractional dimension. Science 156(3775), 636–638 (1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rejani, Y.A.I., Thamaraiselvi, S.: Digital mammogram segmentation and tumour detection using artificial neural networks. Int. J. Soft Comput. Medwell 3(2), 112–119 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen, C.C., Daponte, J.S., Fox, M.D.: Fractal feature analysis and classification in medical imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 8(2), 133–142 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mohamed, A.W., Kadah, M.Y.: Computer aided diagnosis of digital mammograms. IEEE 1, 299–303 (2007). ISSN 4244–1366-4/07.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauer, W., Mackenzie, D.C.: Cancer detection via determination of fractal cell dimension. Heavy Ion Phys. 14, 39–46 (2001)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cross, S.S., Cotton, D.W.K.: The fractal dimension may be a useful morphometric discriminant in histopathology. J. Path. 166, 409–411 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, W.L., Chen, Y.C., Chen, Y.C., Hsieh, K.S.: Unsupervised segmentation of ultrasonic liver images by multiresolution fractal feature vectors. Inf. Sci. 175(3), 177–199 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rose, C., Turi, D., Williams, A., Wolstencroft, K., Taylor, C.: University of south florida digital mammography home page. IWDM. Database.html, (2006)
  12. 12.
    Kopans, D.B.: Breast Imaging Medicine, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, ISBN-10.PS, Philadelphia (1989).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Veenland, J., Grashuis, J.L., Van der Meer, F., Beckers, A.L.D., Gelsema, E.S.: Estimation of fractal dimension in radiographs. Med. Phys. 23, 584–585 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gil, J., Gimeno, M., Laborda, J., Nuviala, J.: Fractal dimension of dog kidney proximal convoluted tubuli sections by mean Box-counting algorithm. Int. J. Morphol. 24(4), 549–554 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metser, U.: 18 F-FDG PET in evaluating patients treated for Metastatic colorectal cancer: can we predict prognosis? J. Nucl. Med. 45(9), 1428–1430 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kikuchi, A., Kozuma, S., Yasugi, T., Taketani, Y.: Fractal analysis of surface growth patterns in endometrioid endometrial adenocarcinoma. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 58(2), 61–67 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sullivan, R., Holden, T., Jr Tremberger, G., Cheung, E., Branch, C., Burrero, J., Surpris, G., Quintana, S., Rameau, A., Gadura, N., Yao, H., Subramaniam, R., Schneider, P., Rotenberg, A., Marchese, P., Flamhlolz, A., Lieberman, D., Cheung, T.: Fractal dimension of breast cancer cell migration in a wound healing assay. Eng. Technol. 34, 25–30 (2008). ISSN 2070–3740.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ohri, S., Dey, P., Nijhawan, R.: Fractal dimension in aspiration cytology smears of breast and cervical lesions. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 26(2), 109–112 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dey, P., Mohanty, K.S.: Fractal dimensions of breast lesions on cytology smears. Diagn. Cytopathol. 29(2), 85–86 (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Snedecor, W.G., Cochran, G.W.: Statistical Methods, 7th edn. The IOWA State University Press, Ames (1980)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. C. Latha
    • 2
  • S. Valarmathi
    • 1
  • Ayesha Sulthana
    • 2
  • Ramya Rathan
    • 3
  • R. Sridhar
    • 1
  • S. Balasubramanian
    • 1
  1. 1.DRDO-BU-CLSBharathiar UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  2. 2.Water and HealthJSS UniversityMysoreIndia
  3. 3.JSS UniversityAnatomyMysoreIndia

Personalised recommendations