A standardised protocol for texture feature analysis of endoscopic images in gynaecological cancer

BackgroundIn the development of tissue classification methods, classifiers rely on significant differences between texture features extracted from normal and abnormal regions. Yet, significant differences can arise due to variations in the image acquisition method. For endoscopic imaging of the endometrium, we propose a standardized image acquisition protocol to eliminate significant statistical differences due to variations in: (i) the distance from the tissue (panoramic vs close up), (ii) difference in viewing angles and (iii) color correction.MethodsWe investigate texture feature variability for a variety of targets encountered in clinical endoscopy. All images were captured at clinically optimum illumination and focus using 720 × 576 pixels and 24 bits color for: (i) a variety of testing targets from a color palette with a known color distribution, (ii) different viewing angles, (iv) two different distances from a calf endometrial and from a chicken cavity. Also, human images from the endometrium were captured and analysed. For texture feature analysis, three different sets were considered: (i) Statistical Features (SF), (ii) Spatial Gray Level Dependence Matrices (SGLDM), and (iii) Gray Level Difference Statistics (GLDS). All images were gamma corrected and the extracted texture feature values were compared against the texture feature values extracted from the uncorrected images. Statistical tests were applied to compare images from different viewing conditions so as to determine any significant differences.ResultsFor the proposed acquisition procedure, results indicate that there is no significant difference in texture features between the panoramic and close up views and between angles. For a calibrated target image, gamma correction provided an acquired image that was a significantly better approximation to the original target image. In turn, this implies that the texture features extracted from the corrected images provided for better approximations to the original images. Within the proposed protocol, for human ROIs, we have found that there is a large number of texture features that showed significant differences between normal and abnormal endometrium.ConclusionThis study provides a standardized protocol for avoiding any significant texture feature differences that may arise due to variability in the acquisition procedure or the lack of color correction. After applying the protocol, we have found that significant differences in texture features will only be due to the fact that the features were extracted from different types of tissue (normal vs abnormal).

[1]  J. Scharcanski Diagnostic Hysteroscopy Video Summarization and Browsing , 2005, 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference.

[2]  Shree K. Nayar,et al.  Modeling the space of camera response functions , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[3]  M. P. Tjoa,et al.  Feature extraction for the analysis of colon status from the endoscopic images , 2003, Biomedical engineering online.

[4]  Thomas S. Spisz,et al.  Two-dimensional shape and texture quantification , 2000 .

[5]  Azriel Rosenfeld,et al.  A Comparative Study of Texture Measures for Terrain Classification , 1975, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[6]  Fayez Ja,et al.  Comparison of Different Treatment Methods of Endometriomas by Laparoscopy , 1991, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  R. Jeffrey,et al.  CT colonography: influence of 3D viewing and polyp candidate features on interpretation with computer-aided detection. , 2006, Radiology.

[8]  Yung-Chang Chen,et al.  Texture features for classification of ultrasonic liver images , 1992, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[9]  C. Palm,et al.  Colour texture analysis for quantitative laryngoscopy , 2003, Acta oto-laryngologica.

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

[11]  Robert Bregovic,et al.  Multirate Systems and Filter Banks , 2002 .

[12]  U. Vry,et al.  Three-dimensional video-endoscopy: clinical use in gynaecological laparoscopy , 1994, The Lancet.

[13]  Maria Petrou,et al.  Image processing - dealing with texture , 2020 .

[14]  M.S. Pattichis,et al.  Texture-Based Classification of Hysteroscopy Images of the Endometrium , 2006, 2006 International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[15]  Dimitris A. Karras,et al.  Computer-aided tumor detection in endoscopic video using color wavelet features , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine.

[16]  Gábor Székely,et al.  Evaluation of different pathology generation strategies for surgical training simulators , 2003, CARS.

[17]  Moon Gi Kang,et al.  Design of real-time image enhancement preprocessor for CMOS image sensor , 2000, 2000 Digest of Technical Papers. International Conference on Consumer Electronics. Nineteenth in the Series (Cat. No.00CH37102).

[18]  S. Shapiro,et al.  An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Samples) , 1965 .

[19]  Yves Vander Haeghen,et al.  An imaging system with calibrated color image acquisition for use in dermatology , 2000, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[20]  JAMIL A. FAYEZ,et al.  Comparison of Different Treatment Methods of Endometriomas by Laparoscopy , 1991, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  C. Pattichis,et al.  The Effect of Color Correction of Endoscopy Images for Quantitative Analysis in Endometrium , 2005, 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference.

[22]  Stavros A. Karkanis,et al.  Classification of Endoscopic Images Based on Texture Spectrum , 1999 .

[23]  C. Pattichis,et al.  Texture analysis of the endometrium during hysteroscopy: preliminary results , 2004, The 26th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[24]  S. Sheraizin,et al.  Endoscopy Imaging Intelligent Contrast Improvement , 2005, 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference.

[25]  Cody Schrank,et al.  American Cancer Society , 2005 .