TESTING THE PERFORMANCES OF DIFFERENT IMAGE REPRESENTATIONS FOR MASS CLASSIFICATION IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAMS

The classification of tumoral masses and normal breast tissue is targeted. A mass detection algorithm which does not refer explicitly to shape, border, size, contrast or texture of mammographic suspicious regions is evaluated. In the present approach, classification features are embodied by the image representation used to encode suspicious regions. Classification is performed by means of a support vector machine (SVM) classifier. To investigate whether improvements can be achieved with respect to a previously proposed overcomplete wavelet image representation, a pixel and a discrete wavelet image representations are developed and tested. Evaluation is performed by extracting 6000 suspicious regions from the digital database for screening mammography (DDSM) collected by the University of South Florida (USF). More specifically, 1000 regions representing biopsy-proven tumoral masses (either benign or malignant) and 5000 regions representing normal breast tissue are extracted. Results demonstrate very high performance levels. The area Az under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve reaches values of 0.973 +/- 0.002, 0.948 +/- 0.004 and 0.956 +/- 0.003 for the pixel, discrete wavelet and overcomplete wavelet image representations, respectively. In particular, the improvement in the Az value with the pixel image representation is statistically significant compared to that obtained with the discrete wavelet and overcomplete wavelet image representations (two-tailed p-value < 0.0001). Additionally, 90% true positive fraction (TPF) values are achieved with false positive fraction (FPF) values of 6%, 11% and 7%, respectively.

[1]  Axthonv G. Oettinger,et al.  IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , 1998 .

[2]  Sabrina S Wilson Radiology , 1938, Glasgow Medical Journal.

[3]  Juan R. Sanchez MULTIFRACTAL CHARACTERISTICS OF LINEAR ONE-DIMENSIONAL CELLULAR AUTOMATA , 2003 .

[4]  Gunnar Rätsch,et al.  An introduction to kernel-based learning algorithms , 2001, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[5]  H. Damasio,et al.  IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence: Special Issue on Perceptual Organization in Computer Vision , 1998 .

[6]  Mark Holden,et al.  Physics in Medicine and Biology , 1956, Nature.

[7]  Yu Zong Chen,et al.  Support Vector Machine Classification Of Physical And Biological Datasets , 2003 .

[8]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Statistical learning theory , 1998 .

[9]  N Ibrahim,et al.  Automated detection of clustered microcalcifications on mammograms: CAD system application to MIAS database , 1997, Physics in medicine and biology.

[10]  N. Petrick,et al.  Classification of mass and normal breast tissue on digital mammograms: multiresolution texture analysis. , 1995, Medical physics.

[11]  A Bazzani,et al.  An SVM classifier to separate false signals from microcalcifications in digital mammograms , 2001, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  E. W. Shrigley Medical Physics , 1944, British medical journal.

[13]  Y H Chang,et al.  Knowledge-based computer-aided detection of masses on digitized mammograms: a preliminary assessment. , 2001, Medical physics.

[14]  R. Bird,et al.  Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. , 1992, Radiology.

[15]  A. Jemal,et al.  Cancer Statistics, 2005 , 2005, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[16]  Maryellen L. Giger,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of breast lesions in medical images , 2000, Comput. Sci. Eng..

[17]  Edward H. Adelson,et al.  Shiftable multiscale transforms , 1992, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[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]  Alessandro Bevilacqua,et al.  SYSTEM FOR AUTOMATIC DETECTION OF CLUSTERED MICROCALCIFICATIONS IN DIGITAL MAMMOGRAMS , 2000 .

[20]  David S. Touretzky,et al.  Advances in neural information processing systems 2 , 1989 .

[21]  M. Masotti,et al.  A novel featureless approach to mass detection in digital mammograms based on support vector machines. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

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

[23]  Rene Vargas-Voracek,et al.  Computer-assisted detection of mammographic masses: a template matching scheme based on mutual information. , 2003, Medical physics.

[24]  Nico Karssemeijer,et al.  Computer-Aided Diagnosis in Medical Imaging , 2001, IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging.

[25]  Willi-Hans Steeb,et al.  DISCRETE WAVELETS AND FILTERING CHAOTIC SIGNALS , 2002 .

[26]  M. Giger,et al.  An "intelligent" workstation for computer-aided diagnosis. , 1993, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[27]  J. Nadal,et al.  International Journal of Modern Physics C C World Scientiic Publishing Company Neural Networks as Optimal Information Processors , 1994 .

[28]  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.

[29]  Richard H. Moore,et al.  THE DIGITAL DATABASE FOR SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY , 2007 .

[30]  Craig K Abbey,et al.  Computer aided detection of masses in mammography using subregion Hotelling observers. , 2003, Medical physics.