Automated pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms: Comparison of deep neural network to conventional computer vision.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to develop a fully automated deep learning approach for identification of the pectoral muscle on mediolateral oblique (MLO) view mammograms and evaluate its performance in comparison to our previously developed texture-field orientation (TFO) method using conventional image feature analysis. Pectoral muscle segmentation is an important step for automated image analyses such as breast density or parenchymal pattern classification, lesion detection, and multiview correlation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained before data collection. A dataset of 729 MLO-view mammograms including 637 digitized film mammograms (DFM) and 92 digital mammograms (DM) from our previous study was used for the training and validation of our deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) segmentation method. In addition, we collected an independent set of 203 DMs from 131 patients for testing. The film mammograms were digitized at a pixel size of 50 μm × 50 μm with a Lumiscan digitizer. All DMs were acquired with GE systems at a pixel size of 100 μm × 100 μm. An experienced MQSA radiologist manually drew the pectoral muscle boundary on each mammogram as the reference standard. We trained the DCNN to estimate a probability map of the pectoral muscle region on mammograms. The DCNN consisted of a contracting path to capture multiresolution image context and a symmetric expanding path for prediction of the pectoral muscle region. Three DCNN structures were compared for automated identification of pectoral muscles. Tenfold cross-validation was used in training of the DCNNs. After training, we applied the ten trained models during cross-validation to the independent DM test set. The predicted pectoral muscle region of each test DM was obtained as the mean probability map by averaging the ensemble of probability maps from the ten models. The DCNN-segmented pectoral muscle was evaluated by three performance measures relative to the reference standard: (a) the percent overlap area (POA) of the pectoral muscle regions, (b) the Hausdorff distance (Hdist), and (c) the average Euclidean distance (AvgDist) between the boundaries. The results were compared to those obtained with the TFO method, used as our baseline. A two-tailed paired t test was performed to examine the significance in the differences between the DCNN and the baseline. RESULTS In the ten test partitions of the cross-validation set, the DCNN achieved a mean POA of 96.5 ± 2.9%, a mean Hdist of 2.26 ± 1.31 mm, and a mean AvgDist of 0.78 ± 0.58 mm, while the corresponding measures by the baseline method were 94.2 ± 4.8%, 3.69 ± 2.48 mm, and 1.30 ± 1.22 mm, respectively. For the independent DM test set, the DCNN achieved a mean POA of 93.7% ± 6.9%, a mean Hdist of 3.80 ± 3.21 mm, and a mean AvgDist of 1.49 ± 1.62 mm comparing to 86.9% ± 16.0%, 7.18 ± 14.22 mm, and 3.98 ± 14.13 mm, respectively, by the baseline method. CONCLUSION In comparison to the TFO method, DCNN significantly improved the accuracy of pectoral muscle identification on mammograms (P < 0.05).

[1]  Matthew T. Freedman,et al.  Artificial convolution neural network techniques and applications for lung nodule detection , 1995, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[2]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and the risk and detection of breast cancer. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Ghassan Hamarneh,et al.  Geometry-Based Pectoral Muscle Segmentation From MLO Mammogram Views , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[4]  Xiaogang Wang,et al.  Pyramid Scene Parsing Network , 2016, 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[5]  N Karssemeijer,et al.  Automated classification of parenchymal patterns in mammograms. , 1998, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Luis Perez,et al.  The Effectiveness of Data Augmentation in Image Classification using Deep Learning , 2017, ArXiv.

[7]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Automatic identification of the pectoral muscle in mammograms , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[8]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Mass detection in digital breast tomosynthesis: Deep convolutional neural network with transfer learning from mammography. , 2016, Medical physics.

[9]  K L Lam,et al.  Digitization requirements in mammography: effects on computer-aided detection of microcalcifications. , 1994, Medical physics.

[10]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Fully Convolutional Networks for Semantic Segmentation , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[11]  Kunihiko Fukushima,et al.  Neocognitron: A hierarchical neural network capable of visual pattern recognition , 1988, Neural Networks.

[12]  J. Douglas,et al.  Computerized image analysis: texture-field orientation method for pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms. , 2010, Medical physics.

[13]  H. Anton Elementary Linear Algebra , 1970 .

[14]  V. McCormack,et al.  Breast Density and Parenchymal Patterns as Markers of Breast Cancer Risk: A Meta-analysis , 2006, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

[15]  H. Mirzaalian,et al.  Pectoral Muscle Segmentation on Digital Mammograms by Nonlinear Diffusion Filtering , 2007, 2007 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing.

[16]  Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi,et al.  V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentation , 2016, 2016 Fourth International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV).

[17]  P. Jaccard THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE FLORA IN THE ALPINE ZONE.1 , 1912 .

[18]  Thomas Brox,et al.  U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation , 2015, MICCAI.

[19]  Yang Wang,et al.  Optimizing Intersection-Over-Union in Deep Neural Networks for Image Segmentation , 2016, ISVC.

[20]  Arthur Burgess On the noise variance of a digital mammography system. , 2004, Medical physics.

[21]  Takayuki Ito,et al.  Neocognitron: A neural network model for a mechanism of visual pattern recognition , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[22]  U. Rajendra Acharya,et al.  Pectoral muscle segmentation: A review , 2013, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[23]  N. Petrick,et al.  Classification of compressed breast shapes for the design of equalization filters in x-ray mammography. , 1998, Medical physics.

[24]  Mariusz Bajger,et al.  Two graph theory based methods for identifying the pectoral muscle in mammograms , 2007, Pattern Recognit..

[25]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Pectoral muscle segmentation in breast tomosynthesis with deep learning , 2018, Medical Imaging.

[26]  N. Boyd,et al.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: current understanding and future prospects , 2011, Breast Cancer Research.

[27]  Roberto Cipolla,et al.  SegNet: A Deep Convolutional Encoder-Decoder Architecture for Image Segmentation , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[28]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Radon-Domain Detection of the Nipple and the Pectoral Muscle in Mammograms , 2007, Journal of Digital Imaging.

[29]  Huai Li,et al.  Artificial convolution neural network for medical image pattern recognition , 1995, Neural Networks.

[30]  Matthew T. Freedman,et al.  Computer-assisted diagnosis of lung nodule detection using artificial convoultion neural network , 1993 .

[31]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Multi-task transfer learning deep convolutional neural network: application to computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer on mammograms , 2017, Physics in medicine and biology.

[32]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer statistics, 2017 , 2017, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[33]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Evaluation of computer-aided detection and diagnosis systems. , 2013, Medical physics.

[34]  George E. Nasr,et al.  Cross Entropy Error Function in Neural Networks: Forecasting Gasoline Demand , 2002, FLAIRS.

[35]  K L Lam,et al.  Computer-aided detection of mammographic microcalcifications: pattern recognition with an artificial neural network. , 1995, Medical physics.

[36]  Byung-Woo Hong,et al.  Segmentation of Regions of Interest in Mammograms in a Topographic Approach , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.

[37]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Classification of mass and normal breast tissue: a convolution neural network classifier with spatial domain and texture images , 1996, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.