| Literature DB >> 25506388 |
Saleem Iqbal1, Khalid Iqbal1, Fahim Arif2, Arslan Shaukat1, Aasia Khanum1.
Abstract
Computed tomography (CT) is an important imaging modality. Physicians, surgeons, and oncologists prefer CT scan for diagnosis of lung cancer. However, some nodules are missed in CT scan. Computer aided diagnosis methods are useful for radiologists for detection of these nodules and early diagnosis of lung cancer. Early detection of malignant nodule is helpful for treatment. Computer aided diagnosis of lung cancer involves lung segmentation, potential nodules identification, features extraction from the potential nodules, and classification of the nodules. In this paper, we are presenting an automatic method for detection and segmentation of lung nodules from CT scan for subsequent features extraction and classification. Contribution of the work is the detection and segmentation of small sized nodules, low and high contrast nodules, nodules attached with vasculature, nodules attached to pleura membrane, and nodules in close vicinity of the diaphragm and lung wall in one-go. The particular techniques of the method are multistep threshold for the nodule detection and shape index threshold for false positive reduction. We used 60 CT scans of "Lung Image Database Consortium-Image Database Resource Initiative" taken by GE medical systems LightSpeed16 scanner as dataset and correctly detected 92% nodules. The results are reproducible.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25506388 PMCID: PMC4260430 DOI: 10.1155/2014/241647
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Flow diagram. IM stands for intermediate mask. Th stands for threshold (intermediate threshold). FP stands for false positives.
Algorithm 1
Figure 2CT slice image.
Figure 3Segmented lung image.
Figure 4Shape index of nodule and vessel.
Figure 5Pulmonary nodule.
Figure 6Number of nodules detected.
Comparison.
| Sr. number | Study | Year | Nodule size (mm) | Sensitivity (%) | FPs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dehmeshki et al. [ | 2008 | — | 84 | — |
| 2 | Ye et al. [ | 2009 | 3–20 | 90.2 | 8.2 |
| 3 | Messay et al. [ | 2010 | 3–30 | 82.66 | 3 |
| 4 | Tan et al. [ | 2011 | — | 87.5 | 4 |
| 5 | Cascio et al. [ | 2012 | — | 88 | 2.5 |
| 6 | El-Baz et al. [ | 2013 | — | 82.30 | 12 |
| 7 | Proposed method | 3–30 | 92 | 6 |