Bilateral analysis based false positive reduction for computer-aided mass detection.

We have developed a false positive (FP) reduction method based on analysis of bilateral mammograms for computerized mass detection systems. The mass candidates on each view were first detected by our unilateral computer-aided detection (CAD) system. For each detected object, a regional registration technique was used to define a region of interest (ROI) that is "symmetrical" to the object location on the contralateral mammogram. Texture features derived from the spatial gray level dependence matrices and morphological features were extracted from the ROI containing the detected object on a mammogram and its corresponding ROI on the contralateral mammogram. Bilateral features were then generated from corresponding pairs of unilateral features for each object. Two linear discriminant analysis (LDA) classifiers were trained from the unilateral and the bilateral feature spaces, respectively. Finally, the scores from the unilateral LDA classifier and the bilateral LDA asymmetry classifier were fused with a third LDA whose output score was used to distinguish true mass from FPs. A data set of 341 cases of bilateral two-view mammograms was used in this study, of which 276 cases with 552 bilateral pairs contained 110 malignant and 166 benign biopsy-proven masses and 65 cases with 130 bilateral pairs were normal. The mass data set was divided into two subsets for twofold cross-validation training and testing. The normal data set was used for estimation of FP rates. It was found that our bilateral CAD system achieved a case-based sensitivity of 70%, 80%, and 85% at average FP rates of 0.35, 0.75, and 0.95 FPs/image, respectively, on the test data sets with malignant masses. In comparison to the average FP rates for the unilateral CAD system of 0.58, 1.33, and 1.63, respectively, at the corresponding sensitivities, the FP rates were reduced by 40%, 44%, and 42% with the bilateral symmetry information. The improvement was statistically significance (p < 0.05) as estimated by JAFROC analysis.

[1]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[2]  L. Tabár,et al.  REDUCTION IN MORTALITY FROM BREAST CANCER AFTER MASS SCREENING WITH MAMMOGRAPHY Randomised Trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare , 1985, The Lancet.

[3]  I. M. Ariel,et al.  Breast cancer: Diagnosis and treatment , 1987 .

[4]  K Doi,et al.  Improvement in radiologists' detection of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms. The potential of computer-aided diagnosis. , 1990, Investigative radiology.

[5]  M L Giger,et al.  Computerized detection of masses in digital mammograms: analysis of bilateral subtraction images. , 1991, Medical physics.

[6]  Martin D. Fox,et al.  Classifying mammographic lesions using computerized image analysis , 1993, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[7]  Rangaraj M. Rangayyan,et al.  Application of shape analysis to mammographic calcifications , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[8]  R E Hendrick,et al.  Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 Years. Current evidence from randomized controlled trials , 1995, Cancer.

[9]  Craig A. Beam,et al.  Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. , 1996, Archives of internal medicine.

[10]  Dragana Brzakovic,et al.  Establishing the correspondence between control points in pairs of mammographic images , 1997, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[11]  C. Metz,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves from continuously-distributed data. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  P. G. Tahoces,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis: automatic detection of malignant masses in digitized mammograms. , 1998, Medical physics.

[13]  R E Hendrick,et al.  American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  H P Chan,et al.  Combined adaptive enhancement and region-growing segmentation of breast masses on digitized mammograms. , 1999, Medical physics.

[15]  L. Tabár,et al.  Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. , 2000, Radiology.

[16]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Computerized image analysis: estimation of breast density on mammograms. , 2001, Medical physics.

[17]  T. Freer,et al.  Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. , 2001, Radiology.

[18]  D. Ikeda,et al.  Mammographic characteristics of 115 missed cancers later detected with screening mammography and the potential utility of computer-aided detection. , 2001, Radiology.

[19]  B. Cady,et al.  The life‐sparing potential of mammographic screening , 2001, Cancer.

[20]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Analysis of temporal changes of mammographic features: computer-aided classification of malignant and benign breast masses. , 2001, Medical physics.

[21]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Breast cancer detection: evaluation of a mass-detection algorithm for computer-aided diagnosis -- experience in 263 patients. , 2002, Radiology.

[22]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Improvement of computerized mass detection on mammograms: fusion of two-view information. , 2002, Medical physics.

[23]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  A comparison of methods for mammogram registration , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[24]  C. D'Orsi,et al.  International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  Joann G Elmore,et al.  Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[26]  Rachel F Brem,et al.  Improvement in sensitivity of screening mammography with computer-aided detection: a multiinstitutional trial. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[27]  Dev P Chakraborty,et al.  Observer studies involving detection and localization: modeling, analysis, and validation. , 2004, Medical physics.

[28]  Margarita L Zuley,et al.  Can computer-aided detection with double reading of screening mammograms help decrease the false-negative rate? Initial experience. , 2004, Radiology.

[29]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Sensitivity of noncommercial computer-aided detection system for mammographic breast cancer detection: pilot clinical trial. , 2004, Radiology.

[30]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses on full field digital mammograms. , 2005, Medical physics.

[31]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Finding corresponding regions of interest in mediolateral oblique and craniocaudal mammographic views. , 2006, Medical physics.

[32]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms: bilateral analysis for false positive reduction , 2006, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[33]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Dual system approach to computer-aided detection of breast masses on mammograms. , 2006, Medical physics.