Computerized image analysis: texture-field orientation method for pectoral muscle identification on MLO-view mammograms.

PURPOSE To develop a new texture-field orientation (TFO) method that combines a priori knowledge, local and global information for the automated identification of pectoral muscle on mammograms. METHODS The authors designed a gradient-based directional kernel (GDK) filter to enhance the linear texture structures, and a gradient-based texture analysis to extract a texture orientation image that represented the dominant texture orientation at each pixel. The texture orientation image was enhanced by a second GDK filter for ridge point extraction. The extracted ridge points were validated and the ridges that were less likely to lie on the pectoral boundary were removed automatically. A shortest-path finding method was used to generate a probability image that represented the likelihood that each remaining ridge point lay on the true pectoral boundary. Finally, the pectoral boundary was tracked by searching for the ridge points with the highest probability lying on the pectoral boundary. A data set of 130 MLO-view digitized film mammograms (DFMs) from 65 patients was used to train the TFO algorithm. An independent data set of 637 MLO-view DFMs from 562 patients was used to evaluate its performance. Another independent data set of 92 MLO-view full field digital mammograms (FFDMs) from 92 patients was used to assess the adaptability of the TFO algorithm to FFDMs. The pectoral boundary detection accuracy of the TFO method was quantified by comparison with an experienced radiologist's manually drawn pectoral boundary using three performance metrics: The percent overlap area (POA), the Hausdorff distance (Hdist), and the average distance (AvgDist). RESULTS The mean and standard deviation of POA, Hdist, and AvgDist were 95.0 +/- 3.6%, 3.45 +/- 2.16 mm, and 1.12 +/- 0.82 mm, respectively. For the POA measure, 91.5%, 97.3%, and 98.9% of the computer detected pectoral muscles had POA larger than 90%, 85%, and 80%, respectively. For the distance measures, 85.4% and 98.0% of the computer detected pectoral boundaries had Hdist within 5 and 10 mm, respectively, and 99.4% of computer detected pectoral muscle boundaries had AvgDist within 5 mm from the radiologist's manually drawn boundaries. CONCLUSIONS The pectoral muscle on DFMs can be detected accurately by the automated TFO method. The preliminary study of applying the same pectoral muscle identification algorithm to FFDMs without retraining demonstrates that the TFO method is reasonably robust against the differences in the image properties between the digitized and digital mammograms.