Characterization of masses in digital breast tomosynthesis: comparison of machine learning in projection views and reconstructed slices.

PURPOSE In digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), quasi-three-dimensional (3D) structural information is reconstructed from a small number of 2D projection view (PV) mammograms acquired over a limited angular range. The authors developed preliminary computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) methods for classification of malignant and benign masses and compared the effectiveness of analyzing lesion characteristics in the reconstructed DBT slices and in the PVs. METHODS A data set of MLO view DBT of 99 patients containing 107 masses (56 malignant and 51 benign) was collected at the Massachusetts General Hospital with IRB approval. The DBTs were obtained with a GE prototype system which acquired 11 PVs over a 50 degree arc. The authors reconstructed the DBTs at 1 mm slice interval using a simultaneous algebraic reconstruction technique. The region of interest (ROI) containing the mass was marked by a radiologist in the DBT volume and the corresponding ROIs on the PVs were derived based on the imaging geometry. The subsequent processes were fully automated. For classification of masses using the DBT-slice approach, the mass on each slice was segmented by an active contour model initialized with adaptive k-means clustering. A spiculation likelihood map was generated by analysis of the gradient directions around the mass margin and spiculation features were extracted from the map. The rubber band straightening transform (RBST) was applied to a band of pixels around the segmented mass boundary. The RBST image was enhanced by Sobel filtering in the horizontal and vertical directions, from which run-length statistics texture features were extracted. Morphological features including those from the normalized radial length were designed to describe the mass shape. A feature space composed of the spiculation features, texture features, and morphological features extracted from the central slice alone and seven feature spaces obtained by averaging the corresponding features from three to 19 slices centered at the central slice were compared. For classification of masses using the PV approach, a feature extraction process similar to that described above for the DBT approach was performed on the ROIs from the individual PVs. Six feature spaces obtained from the central PV alone and by averaging the corresponding features from three to 11 PVs were formed. In each feature space for either the DBT-slice or the PV approach, a linear discriminant analysis classifier with stepwise feature selection was trained and tested using a two-loop leave-one-case-out resampling procedure. Simplex optimization was used to guide feature selection automatically within the training set in each leave-one-case-out cycle. The performance of the classifiers was evaluated by the area (Az) under the receiver operating characteristic curve. RESULTS The test Az values from the DBT-slice approach ranged from 0.87 +/- 0.03 to 0.93 +/- 0.02, while those from the PV approach ranged from 0.78 +/- 0.04 to 0.84 +/- 0.04. The highest test Az of 0.93 +/- 0.02 from the nine-DBT-slice feature space was significantly (p = 0.006) better than the highest test Az of 0.84 +/- 0.04 from the nine-PV feature space. CONCLUSION The features of breast lesions extracted from the DBT slices consistently provided higher classification accuracy than those extracted from the PV images.

[1]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  TH‐E‐L100J‐03: Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Mammography: Computerized Classification of Malignant and Benign Masses , 2007 .

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

[3]  James T Dobbins,et al.  Digital x-ray tomosynthesis: current state of the art and clinical potential. , 2003, Physics in medicine and biology.

[4]  N. Petrick,et al.  Computerized characterization of masses on mammograms: the rubber band straightening transform and texture analysis. , 1998, Medical physics.

[5]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  Improvement of mammographic mass characterization using spiculation meausures and morphological features. , 2001, Medical physics.

[6]  M L Giger,et al.  Computerized Detection of Mass Lesions in Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images Using Two- and Three Dimensional Radial Gradient Index Segmentation , 2004, Technology in cancer research & treatment.

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

[8]  N. Petrick,et al.  Improvement of radiologists' characterization of mammographic masses by using computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. , 1999, Radiology.

[9]  Lubomir M. Hadjiiski,et al.  A comparative study of limited-angle cone-beam reconstruction methods for breast tomosynthesis. , 2006, Medical physics.

[10]  M. Giger,et al.  Breast cancer: effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis observer study with independent database of mammograms. , 2002, Radiology.

[11]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided diagnosis of pulmonary nodules on CT scans: improvement of classification performance with nodule surface features. , 2009, Medical physics.

[12]  N. Petrick,et al.  Improvement in radiologists' characterization of malignant and benign breast masses on serial mammograms with computer-aided diagnosis: an ROC study. , 2004, Radiology.

[13]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of mass classification using 3D slices and 2D projection views , 2008, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[14]  M. Giger,et al.  Computerized mass detection for digital breast tomosynthesis directly from the projection images. , 2006, Medical physics.

[15]  David Gur,et al.  Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[16]  M. Giger,et al.  Improving breast cancer diagnosis with computer-aided diagnosis. , 1999, Academic radiology.

[17]  R. F. Wagner,et al.  Classifier design for computer-aided diagnosis: effects of finite sample size on the mean performance of classical and neural network classifiers. , 1999, Medical physics.

[18]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Breast masses: computer-aided diagnosis with serial mammograms. , 2006, Radiology.

[19]  H P Chan,et al.  Image feature selection by a genetic algorithm: application to classification of mass and normal breast tissue. , 1996, Medical physics.

[20]  D. Kopans,et al.  Tomographic mammography using a limited number of low-dose cone-beam projection images. , 2003, Medical physics.

[21]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection of masses in digital tomosynthesis mammography: comparison of three approaches. , 2008, Medical physics.

[22]  N. Petrick,et al.  Computer-aided classification of mammographic masses and normal tissue: linear discriminant analysis in texture feature space. , 1995, Physics in medicine and biology.

[23]  D. Kopans,et al.  Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. , 1997, Radiology.

[24]  Mary M. Galloway,et al.  Texture analysis using gray level run lengths , 1974 .

[25]  Berkman Sahiner,et al.  Computer-aided detection system for breast masses on digital tomosynthesis mammograms: preliminary experience. , 2005, Radiology.

[26]  C J D'Orsi,et al.  Evaluation of linear and nonlinear tomosynthetic reconstruction methods in digital mammography. , 2001, Academic radiology.