Advertisement

A Review of Automated Techniques for Cervical Cell Image Analysis and Classification

Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Vision and Biomechanics book series (LNCVB, volume 4)

Abstract

Cervical smear screening is the most popular method used for the detection of cervical cancer in its early stages. The most eminent screening test is the Pap smear, which is based on the staining of cervical cells, using the technique that was first introduced by George Papanicolaou (Science 1942). With this screening technique, precancerous conditions and abnormal changes in cells that may develop into cancer are recognized. The widespread use of this test in developed countries has significantly reduced the incidence and mortality of invasive cervical cancer. In the last years, many methods have been appeared in the literature, which aim at the automated determination of the cytoplasm and the nucleus in these images. In this context, sophisticated image processing techniques and feature extraction and classification methods have been developed by several researchers, in order to derive useful conclusions for the characterization of the contents of the Pap smear images. In this work, an overview of the published techniques related to cervical smear screening is presented, in order to provide an integrated essay of the state of the art methods in the specific scientific field. Special focus has been paid on two main concepts with great research interest: the cell image segmentation and the classification techniques proposed for the characterization Pap smear images.

Keywords

Pap smear images Cell nuclei segmentation Abnormal cell feature extraction 

References

  1. Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM (2003) Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears. Gynecol Oncol 90(1):137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J (2008) Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 111(1):167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bak E, Najarian K, Brockway JP (2004) Efficient segmentation framework of cell images in noise environments. Proc 26th Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol 1:1802–1805Google Scholar
  4. Bamford P, Lovell B (1996) A water immersion algorithm for cytological image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the APRS image segmentation workshop, Sydney, pp 75–79Google Scholar
  5. Bamford P, Lovell B (1998) Unsupervised cell nucleus segmentation with active contours. Signal Process 71(2):203–213MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bengtsson E, Eriksson O, Holmquist J (1979) High resolution segmentation of cervical cells. J Histochem Cytochem 27(1):621–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengtsson E, Eriksson O, Holmquist J, Jarkrans T, Nordin B, Stenkvist B (1981) Segmentation of cervical cells: detection of overlapping cell nuclei. Comput Graph Image Process 16:382–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bondarenko AN, Katsuk AV (2005) Extracting feature vectors of biomedical images. In: Proceeding of the 9th Russian-Korean international symposium science and technology KORUS 2005 (Bondarenko and Katsuk) is Novosibirsk, 26 June–2 July 2005, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  9. Borst H, Abmayr W, Gais P (1979) A thresholding method for automatic cell image segmentation. J Histochem Cytochem 27(1):180–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cahn RL, Poulsen RS, Toussaint G (1977) Segmentation of cervical cell images. J Histochem Cytochem 25(7):681–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang CW, Lin MY, Harn HJ, Harn YC, Chen CH, Tsai KH, Hwang CH (2009) Automatic segmentation of abnormal cell nuclei from microscopic image analysis for cervical cancer screening. In: Proceeding of the 3rd IEEE international conference on nano/molecular medicine and engineering, Tainan, Taiwan, pp 77–80Google Scholar
  12. Chankong T, Theera-Umpon N, Auephanwiriyakul S (2009) Cervical cell classification using Fourier transform. Proc 13th Int Conf Biomed Eng 23:476–480Google Scholar
  13. Davey E, Barratt A, Irwig L, Chan SF, Macaskill P, Mannes P, Saville AM (2006) Effect of study design and quality on unsatisfactory rates, cytology classifications, and accuracy in liquid based versus conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review. Lancet 367(9505):122–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallegos-Funes FJ, Gomez-Mayorga ME, Lopez-Bonilla JL, Cruz-Santiago R (2009) Rank M-type radial basis function (RMRBF) neural network for Pap smear microscopic image classification. Apeiron 16(4):542–554Google Scholar
  15. Garrido A, Perez de la Blanca N (2000) Applying deformable templates for cell image segmentation. Pattern Recognit 33(5):821–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harandi NM, Sadri S, Moghaddam NA, Amirfattahi R (2010) An automated method for segmentation of epithelial cervical cells in images of ThinPrep. J Med Syst 34:1043–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang PC, Chan YK, Chan PC, Chen YF, Chen RC, Huang YR (2007) Quantitative assessment of Pap smear cells by PC-based cytopathologic image analysis system and support vector machine. Proc 1st Int Conf Med Biometrics Lect Notes Comput Sci 4901:192–199Google Scholar
  18. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, Patten FW, Zahniser DJ (1994) Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the ThinPrep processor. Am J Clin Pathol 101(2):215–219Google Scholar
  19. Jackway P (1995) Morphological multiscale gradient watershed image analysis. In: Proceedings of the 9th Scandinavian Conference Image Analysis (SCIA 1995), Uppsala, pp 87–94Google Scholar
  20. Jackway P (1996) Gradient watersheds in morphological scale space. IEEE Trans Image Process 5:913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jantzen J, Norup J, Dounias G, Bjerregaard B (2005) Pap-smear benchmark data for pattern classification. In: Proceedings of the Nature inspired Smart Information Systems (NiSIS), Albufeira, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  22. Jung C, Kim C (2010) Segmenting clustered nuclei using H-minima transform-based marker extraction and contour parameterization. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 57(10):2600–2604MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jung C, Kim C, Wan Chae S, Oh S (2010) Unsupervised segmentation of overlapped nuclei using Bayesian classification. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 55(12):2825–2832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kale A, Aksoy S (2010) Segmentation of cervical images. In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on pattern recognition, Istanbul, pp 2399–2402Google Scholar
  25. Kim KB, Kim S, Sim KB (2006) Nucleus classification and recognition of uterine cervical Pap-Smears using fuzzy ART algorithm. Proc 6th Int Conf Simul Evol Learning, Lect Notes Comput Sci 4247:560–567Google Scholar
  26. Kim KB, Song DH, Woo YW (2007) Nucleus segmentation and recognition of uterine cervical Pap-smears. Proc 11th RSFDGrC(2007), Lect Notes Comput Sci 4482:153–160Google Scholar
  27. Klinkhamer PJ, Meerding WJ, Rosier PF, Hanselaar AG (2003) Liquid based cervical cytology: a review of the literature with methods of evidence-based medicine. Cancer Cytopathol 99(5):263–271Google Scholar
  28. Lassouaoui N, Hamami L (2003) Genetic algorithms and multifractal segmentation of cervical cell images. Proc 7th Int Symp Signal Processing Appl 2:1–4Google Scholar
  29. Lezoray O, Cardot H (2002) Cooperation of colour pixel classification schemes and colour watershed: a study for microscopic images. IEEE Trans Image Process 11(7):783–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Z, Najarian K (2001) Automated classification of Pap smear tests using neural networks. Proc Int Joint Conf Neural Networks. Washington, Dc 4:2899–2901. Accessed 15–19 July 2001Google Scholar
  31. Li Z, Najarian K (2007) Biomedical image segmentation based on shape stability. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Conference on Image Process (ICIP 2007), San Antonio, pp 281–284Google Scholar
  32. Lin CH, Chan YK, Chen CC (2009) Detection and segmentation of cervical cell cytoplast and nucleus. Int J Imag Syst Technol 19(3):260–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacAulay C, Palcic B (1988) A comparison of some quick and simple threshold selection methods for stained cells. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 10(2):134–138Google Scholar
  34. Malm P, Brun A (2009) Closing curves with Riemannian dilation: application to segmentation in automated cervical cancer screening. Proc 5th Int Symp Visual Comput 2009, Lect Notes Comput Sci 5875:337–346Google Scholar
  35. Marinakis Y, Marinaki M, Dounias G (2008) Particle swarm optimization for Pap-smear diagnosis. Expert Syst Appl 35:1645–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marinakis Y, Dounias G, Jantzen J (2009) Pap smear diagnosis using a hybrid intelligent scheme focusing on genetic algorithm based feature selection and nearest neighbour classification. Comput Biol Med 39:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mat Isa NA, Mashor MY, Othman NH (2008) An automated cervical pre-cancerous diagnostic system. Artif Intell Med 42:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mustafa N, Mat Isa NA, Mashor MY (2009) Automated multicells segmentation of ThinPrep® image using modified seed based region growing algorithm. Biomed Soft Comput Hum Sci 14(2):41–47Google Scholar
  39. Nallaperumal K, Krishnaveni K (2008) Watershed segmentation of cervical images using multiscale morphological gradient and HSI colour space. Int J Imag Sci Eng (IJISE) 2(2):212–216Google Scholar
  40. Oliver LH, Poulsen RS, Toussaint GT, Louis C (1979) Classification of atypical cells in the automatic cytoscreening for cervical cancer. Pattern Recognit 11:205–212MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Papanicolaou GN (1942) A new procedure for staining vaginal smears. Science 95(2469):438–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plissiti ME, Nikou C (2011) Cell nuclei segmentation by learning a physically based deformable model. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP’11) Corfu, Greece. Accessed 6-8 July 2011Google Scholar
  43. Plissiti ME, Nikou C, Charchanti A (2010a) Watershed-based segmentation of cell nuclei boundaries in Pap smear images. In: Proceedings of the 10th IEEE international conference on Information Technology Applications in Biomedicine (ITAB’10), Corfu, Greece. Accessed 3–5 November 2010Google Scholar
  44. Plissiti ME, Nikou C, Charchanti A (2010b) Accurate localization of cell nuclei in pap smear images using gradient vector flow deformable models. In: Proceeding of the 3rd international conference on Bio-inspired Signals and Systems (BIOSIGNALS), Valencia, Spain, pp 284–289. Accessed 20–23 January 2010Google Scholar
  45. Plissiti ME, Nikou C, Charchanti A (2011a) Automated detection of cell nuclei in pap smear images using morphological reconstruction and clustering. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 15(2):233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plissiti ME, Nikou C, Charchanti A (2011b) Combining shape, texture and intensity features for cell nuclei extraction in pap smear images. Pattern Recognit Lett 32:838–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Poulsen RS, Pedron I (1995) Region of interest finding in reduced resolution colour imagery-application to cancer cell detection. Pattern Recognit 28(11):1645–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Riana D, Murni A (2009) Performance evaluation of Pap smear cell image classification using quantitative and qualitative features based on multiple classifiers. In: Proceedings of the international conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ACSIS’09) Jakarta, Indonesia pp 38–42. Accessed 7–8 December 2010Google Scholar
  49. Sobrevilla P, Montseny E, Lerma E (2008) A fuzzy-based automated cell detection system for color Pap smear tests –FACSDS. In: Fuzzy sets and their extensions: representation, aggregation and models, studies in fuzziness and soft computing. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 220:657–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, Moriarty A, O’Connor D, Prey M, Raab S, Sherman M, Wilbur D, Wright T, Young N (2001) The 2001 Bethesda system: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. J Am Med Assoc 287:2114–2119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsai MH, Chan YK, Lin ZZ, Yang-Mao SF, Huang PC (2008) Nucleus and cytoplast contour detector of cervical smear image. Pattern Recognit Lett 29:1441–1453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vaschetto F, Montseny E, Sobrevilla P, Lerma E (2009) THREECOND: An automated and unsupervised three colour fuzzy-based algorithm for detecting nuclei in cervical Pap smear images. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on intelligent systems design and applications, Washington DC, pp 1359–1364Google Scholar
  53. Walker RF, Jackway P, Lovell B, Longstaff ID (1994) Classification of cervical cell nuclei using morphological segmentation and textural feature extraction. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Australian and New Zealand conference on intelligent information systems, Brisbane, pp 297–301Google Scholar
  54. Wu HS, Gil J, Barba J (1998a) Optimal segmentation of cell images. Proc IEE Vision,Image Signal Process 145(1):50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wu HS, Barba J, Gil J (1998b) A parametric fitting algorithm for segmentation of cell images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 45(3):400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang-Mao SF, Chan YK, Chu YP (2008) Edge enhancement nucleus and cytoplast contour detector of cervical smear images. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet B-Cybernet 38(2):353–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang J, Liu Y (2004) Cervical cancer detection using SVM based feature screening. In: Proceeding of the 7th international conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer Aided Intervention (MICCAI’04), Saint-Malo, France pp 873–880Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of IoanninaIoanninaGreece

Personalised recommendations