Literature DB >> 22894417

Estimation of breast percent density in raw and processed full field digital mammography images via adaptive fuzzy c-means clustering and support vector machine segmentation.

Brad M Keller1, Diane L Nathan, Yan Wang, Yuanjie Zheng, James C Gee, Emily F Conant, Despina Kontos.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The amount of fibroglandular tissue content in the breast as estimated mammographically, commonly referred to as breast percent density (PD%), is one of the most significant risk factors for developing breast cancer. Approaches to quantify breast density commonly focus on either semiautomated methods or visual assessment, both of which are highly subjective. Furthermore, most studies published to date investigating computer-aided assessment of breast PD% have been performed using digitized screen-film mammograms, while digital mammography is increasingly replacing screen-film mammography in breast cancer screening protocols. Digital mammography imaging generates two types of images for analysis, raw (i.e., "FOR PROCESSING") and vendor postprocessed (i.e., "FOR PRESENTATION"), of which postprocessed images are commonly used in clinical practice. Development of an algorithm which effectively estimates breast PD% in both raw and postprocessed digital mammography images would be beneficial in terms of direct clinical application and retrospective analysis.
METHODS: This work proposes a new algorithm for fully automated quantification of breast PD% based on adaptive multiclass fuzzy c-means (FCM) clustering and support vector machine (SVM) classification, optimized for the imaging characteristics of both raw and processed digital mammography images as well as for individual patient and image characteristics. Our algorithm first delineates the breast region within the mammogram via an automated thresholding scheme to identify background air followed by a straight line Hough transform to extract the pectoral muscle region. The algorithm then applies adaptive FCM clustering based on an optimal number of clusters derived from image properties of the specific mammogram to subdivide the breast into regions of similar gray-level intensity. Finally, a SVM classifier is trained to identify which clusters within the breast tissue are likely fibroglandular, which are then aggregated into a final dense tissue segmentation that is used to compute breast PD%. Our method is validated on a group of 81 women for whom bilateral, mediolateral oblique, raw and processed screening digital mammograms were available, and agreement is assessed with both continuous and categorical density estimates made by a trained breast-imaging radiologist.
RESULTS: Strong association between algorithm-estimated and radiologist-provided breast PD% was detected for both raw (r = 0.82, p < 0.001) and processed (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) digital mammograms on a per-breast basis. Stronger agreement was found when overall breast density was assessed on a per-woman basis for both raw (r = 0.85, p < 0.001) and processed (0.89, p < 0.001) mammograms. Strong agreement between categorical density estimates was also seen (weighted Cohen's κ ≥ 0.79). Repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the PD% estimates (p > 0.1) due to either presentation of the image (raw vs processed) or method of PD% assessment (radiologist vs algorithm).
CONCLUSIONS: The proposed fully automated algorithm was successful in estimating breast percent density from both raw and processed digital mammographic images. Accurate assessment of a woman's breast density is critical in order for the estimate to be incorporated into risk assessment models. These results show promise for the clinical application of the algorithm in quantifying breast density in a repeatable manner, both at time of imaging as well as in retrospective studies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22894417      PMCID: PMC3416877          DOI: 10.1118/1.4736530

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  44 in total

1.  Flat-panel digital mammography system: contrast-detail comparison between screen-film radiographs and hard-copy images.

Authors:  Sankararaman Suryanarayanan; Andrew Karellas; Srinivasan Vedantham; Hetal Ved; Stephen P Baker; Carl J D'Orsi
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  A statistical approach for breast density segmentation.

Authors:  Arnau Oliver; Xavier Lladó; Elsa Pérez; Josep Pont; Erika R E Denton; Jordi Freixenet; Joan Martí
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2009-06-09       Impact factor: 4.056

3.  A computational approach to edge detection.

Authors:  J Canny
Journal:  IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell       Date:  1986-06       Impact factor: 6.226

4.  Volume of mammographic density and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  John A Shepherd; Karla Kerlikowske; Lin Ma; Frederick Duewer; Bo Fan; Jeff Wang; Serghei Malkov; Eric Vittinghoff; Steven R Cummings
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 5.  Role of MRI in screening women at high risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Constance D Lehman
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Validation of a method for measuring the volumetric breast density from digital mammograms.

Authors:  O Alonzo-Proulx; N Packard; J M Boone; A Al-Mayah; K K Brock; S Z Shen; M J Yaffe
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2010-05-12       Impact factor: 3.609

7.  Computerized texture analysis of mammographic parenchymal patterns of digitized mammograms.

Authors:  Hui Li; Maryellen L Giger; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Anna Margolis; Li Lan; Michael R Chinander
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  A new method for quantitative analysis of mammographic density.

Authors:  Carri K Glide-Hurst; Neb Duric; Peter Littrup
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.071

9.  Mammographic density and breast cancer risk: evaluation of a novel method of measuring breast tissue volumes.

Authors:  Norman Boyd; Lisa Martin; Anoma Gunasekara; Olga Melnichouk; Gord Maudsley; Chris Peressotti; Martin Yaffe; Salomon Minkin
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Texture features from mammographic images and risk of breast cancer.

Authors:  Armando Manduca; Michael J Carston; John J Heine; Christopher G Scott; V Shane Pankratz; Kathy R Brandt; Thomas A Sellers; Celine M Vachon; James R Cerhan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  53 in total

1.  Fully Automated Quantitative Estimation of Volumetric Breast Density from Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Images: Preliminary Results and Comparison with Digital Mammography and MR Imaging.

Authors:  Said Pertuz; Elizabeth S McDonald; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-10-21       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: robust texture feature identification and equivalence across devices.

Authors:  Brad M Keller; Andrew Oustimov; Yan Wang; Jinbo Chen; Raymond J Acciavatti; Yuanjie Zheng; Shonket Ray; James C Gee; Andrew D A Maidment; Despina Kontos
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2015-04-03

3.  Automated fibroglandular tissue segmentation and volumetric density estimation in breast MRI using an atlas-aided fuzzy C-means method.

Authors:  Shandong Wu; Susan P Weinstein; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.071

4.  Breast density quantification using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with bias field correction: a postmortem study.

Authors:  Huanjun Ding; Travis Johnson; Muqing Lin; Huy Q Le; Justin L Ducote; Min-Ying Su; Sabee Molloi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.071

5.  Inaccurate Labels in Weakly-Supervised Deep Learning: Automatic Identification and Correction and Their Impact on Classification Performance.

Authors:  Degan Hao; Lei Zhang; Jules Sumkin; Aly Mohamed; Shandong Wu
Journal:  IEEE J Biomed Health Inform       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 5.772

6.  Calibrated breast density methods for full field digital mammography: a system for serial quality control and inter-system generalization.

Authors:  B Lu; A M Smallwood; T A Sellers; J S Drukteinis; J J Heine; E E E Fowler
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 4.071

7.  Parenchymal texture analysis in digital mammography: A fully automated pipeline for breast cancer risk assessment.

Authors:  Yuanjie Zheng; Brad M Keller; Shonket Ray; Yan Wang; Emily F Conant; James C Gee; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 4.071

8.  Deep Learning Pre-training Strategy for Mammogram Image Classification: an Evaluation Study.

Authors:  Kadie Clancy; Sarah Aboutalib; Aly Mohamed; Jules Sumkin; Shandong Wu
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.056

9.  Computer-aided assessment of breast density: comparison of supervised deep learning and feature-based statistical learning.

Authors:  Songfeng Li; Jun Wei; Heang-Ping Chan; Mark A Helvie; Marilyn A Roubidoux; Yao Lu; Chuan Zhou; Lubomir M Hadjiiski; Ravi K Samala
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 3.609

10.  Using Convolutional Neural Networks for Enhanced Capture of Breast Parenchymal Complexity Patterns Associated with Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Aimilia Gastounioti; Andrew Oustimov; Meng-Kang Hsieh; Lauren Pantalone; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 3.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.