| Literature DB >> 28473865 |
M M Mehdy1, P Y Ng1, E F Shair2, N I Md Saleh3, C Gomes2.
Abstract
Medical imaging techniques have widely been in use in the diagnosis and detection of breast cancer. The drawback of applying these techniques is the large time consumption in the manual diagnosis of each image pattern by a professional radiologist. Automated classifiers could substantially upgrade the diagnosis process, in terms of both accuracy and time requirement by distinguishing benign and malignant patterns automatically. Neural network (NN) plays an important role in this respect, especially in the application of breast cancer detection. Despite the large number of publications that describe the utilization of NN in various medical techniques, only a few reviews are available that guide the development of these algorithms to enhance the detection techniques with respect to specificity and sensitivity. The purpose of this review is to analyze the contents of recently published literature with special attention to techniques and states of the art of NN in medical imaging. We discuss the usage of NN in four different medical imaging applications to show that NN is not restricted to few areas of medicine. Types of NN used, along with the various types of feeding data, have been reviewed. We also address hybrid NN adaptation in breast cancer detection.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28473865 PMCID: PMC5394406 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2610628
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Structure of a typical ANN for classification of breast tumors in mammography [12].
Figure 2Results (from (a)–(c)): original image, image after first stage of NN processing, and image at second stage of NN processing using Gabor wavelets as input for mammogram image [20].
Figure 3Segmentations of cysts for breast ultrasound image using ANN [32].
Figure 4Multistate CNN used to segment small fatty breast and medium dense breast for MRI image [39].
Summary of methods with NN in breast cancer detection.
| Study | Methods | Input | Purpose | Dataset | Classifier | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dheeba et al. [ | Particle Swarm Optimized Wavelet Neural Network (PSOWNN) | Mammogram | Improve classification accuracy in breast cancer detection and reducing misclassification rate | 216 mammograms | PSOWNN | (i) Sensitivity 94.167% |
|
| ||||||
| Xu et al. [ | New algorithm based on two ANNs | Mammogram | Classification of masses | 30 cases and 60 mammograms | ANFIS and MLP | (i) True positive (TP) rate 93.6% (73/78), |
|
| ||||||
| Alayliogh and Aghdasi [ | ANN and biorthogonal spline wavelet | Mammogram | Classification of microcalcification cluster (MCC) and image enhancement | 40 digitized mammogram | ANN | (i) Sensitivity 93%, |
|
| ||||||
| Dhawan et al. [ | (i) ANN | Mammogram | Classification of significant and benign microcalcifications | 5 image structure features | (i) Three-layer perceptron based ANN | The entropy feature has significant discriminating power for classification |
|
| ||||||
| Chitre et al. [ | ANN | Mammogram | Classification of microcalcification into benign and malignant | (i) 40, 60, and 80 training cases | ANN | Neural network is a robust classifier of a combination of image structure and binary features into benign and malignant |
|
| ||||||
| Kevin et al. [ | ANN | Mammogram | Classification of microcalcifications and nonmicrocalcifications | 24 mammograms with | Cascade correlation ANN | (i) TP detection rate for individual |
|
| ||||||
| Zheng et al. [ | ANN and BBN | Mammogram | Compare performances of ANN and BBN | 3 independent image databases and 38 features | ANN and BBN | Performance level ( |
|
| ||||||
| Zhang et al. [ | Digitize module, detection module, feature extraction module, neural network module, and classification module | Mammogram | Classification of microcalcification clusters/suspicious areas | Fuzzy detection algorithm | Backpropagation neural network (BPNN) | (i) Fuzzy detection rate (benign 84.10% and 80.30%) |
|
| ||||||
| Lashkari [ | ANN and Gabor wavelets | Mammogram | Classification of breast tissues to normal and abnormal classes automatically | (i) Images of 50 normal and 50 | ANN and Gabor wavelets | (i) Classification rate (testing performance 96.3% and training performance 97.5%) |
|
| ||||||
| Saini and Vijay [ | Image registration technique and ANN | Mammogram | Classification of benign and malignant | 42 mammogram images (30 benign and 12 malignant images) | Feed-forward backpropagation and Cascade forward | Percentage accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Buller et al. [ | Spider web topology with NN | Ultrasound | Classify and separate benign and malignant lesion | 25 sonograms | (i) NN classifier | (i) 69% accuracy in malignant |
|
| ||||||
| Ruggierol et al. [ | Texture and shape parameter feeds into NN | Ultrasound | Automated recognition of malignant lesion | (i) 41 carcinomas | (i) NN classifier | (i) 95% accuracy in solid lesions |
|
| ||||||
| Sahiner et al. [ | Convolutional NN with spatial and texture image | Mammogram | Classification of mass and normal breast | 168 mammograms | (i) Convolution NN classifier | (i) Average true positive fraction of 90% at false positive fraction of 31% |
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | Multilayer feed-forward neural network (MFNN) | Ultrasound | Classify benign and malignant lesion | 140 pathological proved tumors (52 malignant, 88 benign) | MFNN | (i) 95% accuracy, 98% sensitivity |
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | Self-organizing map (SOM) | Ultrasound | Classification of benign and malignant lesions | 243 tumors (82 malignant, 161 benign) | SOM | (i) Accuracy of 85.6, sensitivity 97.6% |
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | Bootstrap with NN | Ultrasound | classification of tumor | 263 sonographic image solid breast nodules | NN | (i) Accuracy 87.07%, sensitivity 98.35% |
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | 2-phase Hierarchical Neural Network (HNN) | Ultrasound | Differentiate between benign and malignant tumors | 1020 images (4 different rectangular regions from the 2 orthogonal planes of each tumor) | HNN | 4 image analyses of each tumor appear to give more promising result than if they are used separately |
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | Wavelet transform and neural network | Ultrasound | Differential diagnosis of breast tumors on sonograms | 242 cases (161 benign, 82 malignant) | Multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN) | (i) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area index is 0.9396 ± 0.0183 |
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | Multilayer feed-forward neural network (MFNN) | Ultrasound | Differentiate benign from malignant breast lesions | 1st set: 160 lesions | MFNN | (i) 98.2% training accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Joo et al. [ | Artificial neural network (ANN) | Ultrasound | Determining whether a breast nodule is benign or malignant | 584 histologically confirmed cases (300 benign, 284 malignant) | ANN | (i) 100% training accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Joo et al. [ | Digital image processing and artificial neural network | Ultrasound | Determine breast nodule malignancy | 584 histologically confirmed cases (300 benign, 284 malignant) | ANN | (i) 91.4% accuracy, 92.3% sensitivity |
|
| ||||||
| Zheng et al. [ | Hybrid method (unsupervised | Ultrasound | Classification of breast tumors as benign or malignant | 125 benign tumors, 110 malignant tumors | Combination of | (i) Recognition rate (94.5% for benign, 93.6% for malignant) |
|
| ||||||
| Fok et al. [ | ANN with 3D finite element analysis | IR | Tumor prediction | 200 patients | ANN | Good detection, poor sensitivity |
|
| ||||||
| Szu et al. [ | Unsupervised classification using Lagrange Constraint Neural Network (LCNN) | Mid and long IR images | Early detection of breast cancer | One patient with DCIS | LCNN | Better sensitivity |
|
| ||||||
| Jakubowska et al. [ | ANN with wavelet transform | IR | Discrimination of healthy and pathological cases | 30 healthy | ANN | Accuracy (%) |
| 10 with recognized tumors | Accuracy (%) | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Koay et al. [ | Backpropagation NN | IR | Early detection of breast cancer | 19 patients | Levenberg-Marquardt (LM) and Resilient Backpropagation (RP) | Accuracy (%) |
|
| ||||||
| Tan et al. [ | Fuzzy adaptive learning control network fuzzy neural network | IR | Early detection of breast cancer and tumor classification | 28 healthy, 43 benign tumors, 7 cancer patients | FALCON-AART | Cancer detection (%) (TH/TDF) |
|
| ||||||
| Cardillo et al. [ | NN for automatic analysis of image statistics | MRI | Early detection and classification | 150 exams subdivided into 6 groups by contrast | NN | Better in specificity |
|
| ||||||
| Tzacheva et al. [ | Evaluation of signal intensity and mass properties by NN | MRI | Automatic diagnosis of tumors | 14 patients | Feed-forward BPNN | 90%–100% sensitivity, 91%–100% specificity, and 91%–100% accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| Ertas et al. [ | Extraction of breast regions by conventional and multistate CNNs | MRI | Breast density evaluation and abnormality localization | 23 women | CNN | Average precision 99.3 ± 1.8% |
|
| ||||||
| Hassanien et al. [ | Image classification using PCNN and SVM and using wavelet and fuzzy sets for enhancement | MRI | Breast cancer detection | 70 normal cases, 50 benign and malign cases | Hybrid scheme of PCNN and SVM | Accuracy |
|
| ||||||
| ElNawasany et al. [ | Classifying MR images by hybrid perceptron NN | MRI | Early detection of breast cancer | 138 abnormal and 143 normal | Perceptron with SIFT | Accuracy 86.74% |