Quick search Find article
Quick search
Find article

Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses

C Varela1, S Timp and N Karssemeijer

Show affiliations


We are developing a new method to characterize the margin of a mammographic mass lesion to improve the classification of benign and malignant masses. Towards this goal, we designed features that measure the degree of sharpness and microlobulation of mass margins. We calculated these features in a border region of the mass defined as a thin band along the mass contour. The importance of these features in the classification of benign and malignant masses was studied in relation to existing features used for mammographic mass detection. Features were divided into three groups, each representing a different mass segment: the interior region of a mass, the border and the outer area. The interior and the outer area of a mass were characterized using contrast and spiculation measures. Classification was done in two steps. First, features representing each of the three mass segments were merged into a neural network classifier resulting in a single regional classification score for each segment. Secondly, a classifier combined the three single scores into a final output to discriminate between benign and malignant lesions. We compared the classification performance of each regional classifier and the combined classifier on a data set of 1076 biopsy proved masses (590 malignant and 486 benign) from 481 women included in the Digital Database for Screening Mammography. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the accuracy of the classifiers. The area under the ROC curve (Az) was 0.69 for the interior mass segment, 0.76 for the border segment and 0.75 for the outer mass segment. The performance of the combined classifier was 0.81 for image-based and 0.83 for case-based evaluation. These results show that the combination of information from different mass segments is an effective approach for computer-aided characterization of mammographic masses. An advantage of this approach is that it allows the assessment of the contribution of regions rather than individual features. Results suggest that the border and the outer areas contained the most valuable information for discrimination between benign and malignant masses.


PACS

87.59.E- Mammography

87.57.N- Image analysis

87.57.R- Computer-aided diagnosis

Subjects

Medical physics

Dates

Issue 2 (21 January 2006)

Received 1 September 2005, in final form 16 November 2005

Published 4 January 2006



  1. Use of border information in the classification of mammographic masses

    C Varela et al 2006 Phys. Med. Biol. 51 425

  2. Polarisation and angular distribution of electrons elastically scattered from caesium atoms at 13-25 eV

    M Klewer et al 1979 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 12 L525

  3. Parabolic Julia sets are polynomial time computable

    Mark Braverman 2006 Nonlinearity 19 1383

  4. Scale-invariant gravity: spacetime recovered

    Bryan Kelleher 2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21 483

  5. Application of statistical parameter estimation methods to physical measurements

    A van den Bos 1977 J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 10 753

  6. Universal tangle invariant and commutants of quantum algebras

    H C Lee 1996 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 29 393

  7. Seismic isolation enhancements for initial and Advanced LIGO

    R Abbott et al 2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21 S915

  8. Ionization of sodium and potassium vapour by 20-100 keV H+ and He+ ions

    B G O'Hare et al 1975 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. 8 2968

  9. Kaluza–Klein magnetic monopole in five-dimensional global monopole spacetime

    A L Cavalcanti de Oliveira and E R Bezerra de Mello 2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21 1685

  10. Magnetostrictive and shape memory properties of Fe–Pd alloys with Co and Pt additions

    D Vokoun et al 2005 Smart Mater. Struct. 14 S261

Related review articles

What's this?
View review articles related to this research to gain an insight into the key trends in this subject area. Related review articles are selected based on PACS/MSC codes, and are no more than three years old.

  1. Why do commercial CT scanners still employ traditional, filtered back-projection for image reconstruction?

View by subject




Export








Please login to access our web services, or create an account if you don't yet have one.

You must have cookies enabled in your web browser to be able to login.

Username
Password

Forgotten your password? Get a new one here.