Markov random field for tumor detection in digital mammography

A technique is proposed for the detection of tumors in digital mammography. Detection is performed in two steps: segmentation and classification. In segmentation, regions of interest are first extracted from the images by adaptive thresholding. A further reliable segmentation is achieved by a modified Markov random field (MRF) model-based method. In classification, the MRF segmented regions are classified into suspicious and normal by a fuzzy binary decision tree based on a series of radiographic, density-related features. A set of normal (50) and abnormal (45) screen/film mammograms were tested. The latter contained 48 biopsy proven, malignant masses of various types and subtlety. The detection accuracy of the algorithm was evaluated by means of a free response receiver operating characteristic curve which shows the relationship between the detection of true positive masses and the number of false positive alarms per image. The results indicated that a 90% sensitivity can be achieved in the detection of different types of masses at the expense of two falsely detected signals per image. The algorithm was notably successful in the detection of minimal cancers manifested by masses </=10 mm in size. For the 16 such cases in the authors' dataset, a 94% sensitivity was observed with 1.5 false alarms per image. An extensive study of the effects of the algorithm's parameters on its sensitivity and specificity was also performed in order to optimize the method for a clinical, observer performance study.

[1]  Haluk Derin,et al.  Modeling and Segmentation of Noisy and Textured Images Using Gibbs Random Fields , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[2]  R. Kohler A segmentation system based on thresholding , 1981 .

[3]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  MRF model-based algorithms for image segmentation , 1990, [1990] Proceedings. 10th International Conference on Pattern Recognition.

[4]  L. Clarke,et al.  Image segmentation in digital mammography: comparison of local thresholding and region growing algorithms. , 1992, Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics.

[5]  J. Besag Spatial Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of Lattice Systems , 1974 .

[6]  Wei Qian,et al.  Markov random field model for mammogram segmentation , 1993, Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Societ.

[7]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Random field models in image analysis , 1989 .

[8]  Charles A. Bouman,et al.  Multiple Resolution Segmentation of Textured Images , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[9]  W. Philip Kegelmeyer Evaluation of stellate lesion detection in a standard mammogram data set , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[10]  Donald Geman,et al.  Stochastic Relaxation, Gibbs Distributions, and the Bayesian Restoration of Images , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[11]  D. Chakraborty,et al.  Free-response methodology: alternate analysis and a new observer-performance experiment. , 1990, Radiology.

[12]  S. Lai,et al.  On techniques for detecting circumscribed masses in mammograms. , 1989, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[13]  K Doi,et al.  Effect of case selection on the performance of computer-aided detection schemes. , 1994, Medical physics.

[14]  Y. Shinohara,et al.  Fuzzy set theoretic approach to systems analysis , 1977 .

[15]  D Brzakovic,et al.  An approach to automated detection of tumors in mammograms. , 1990, IEEE transactions on medical imaging.

[16]  Wei Qian,et al.  Tree-structured nonlinear filters in digital mammography , 1994, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[17]  R. Gordon,et al.  Enhancement of Mammographic Features by Optimal Adaptive Neighborhood Image Processing , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Nuggehally Sampath Jayant,et al.  An adaptive clustering algorithm for image segmentation , 1989, International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing,.

[19]  W. Philip Kegelmeyer Computer detection of stellate lesions in mammograms , 1992, Electronic Imaging.

[20]  L O Hall,et al.  Review of MR image segmentation techniques using pattern recognition. , 1993, Medical physics.

[21]  K Doi,et al.  Image feature analysis and computer-aided diagnosis in digital radiography. I. Automated detection of microcalcifications in mammography. , 1987, Medical physics.

[22]  K Doi,et al.  Comparison of bilateral-subtraction and single-image processing techniques in the computerized detection of mammographic masses. , 1993, Investigative radiology.

[23]  Y. Wu,et al.  Artificial neural networks in mammography: application to decision making in the diagnosis of breast cancer. , 1993, Radiology.

[24]  Edward J. Delp,et al.  An iterative growing and pruning algorithm for classification tree design , 1989, Conference Proceedings., IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[25]  Tomaso Poggio,et al.  Probabilistic Solution of Ill-Posed Problems in Computational Vision , 1987 .

[26]  Edward J. Delp,et al.  An Iterative Growing and Pruning Algorithm for Classification Tree Design , 1991, IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell..

[27]  J. Besag On the Statistical Analysis of Dirty Pictures , 1986 .

[28]  Wei Qian,et al.  Tree-structured nonlinear filter and wavelet transform for microcalcification segmentation in mammography , 1993, Electronic Imaging.

[29]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Stochastic model for automated detection of calcifications in digital mammograms , 1992, Image Vis. Comput..