Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Volumn 40, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 115-126

  Cardoso, Jaime S ^a   Cardoso, Maria J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PORTO   (Portugal)

^b University of Porto   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Aesthetical evaluation; Breast cancer conservative treatment; Computer aided medical system; Support vector machines

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED DIAGNOSIS; DATA ACQUISITION; IMAGE PROCESSING; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT MONITORING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PROBLEM SOLVING; STANDARDS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES;

AESTHETIC EVALUATION; BREAST CANCER CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT (BCCT); MEDICAL SYSTEM; SCAR VISIBILITY;

MEDICAL COMPUTING;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BREAST CANCER; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; CONSERVATIVE TREATMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; ESTHETIC SURGERY; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; GOLD STANDARD; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCAR; SKIN COLOR;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; ESTHETICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; THERAPY, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 34249299788     PISSN: 09333657     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed.2007.02.007     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Harris J.R., Levene M.B., Svensson G., and Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 5 (1979) 257-261
2. Beadle G.F., Silver B., Botnick L., Hellman S., and Harris J.R. Cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Cancer 54 (1984) 2911-2918
3. Pierquin B., Huart J., Raynal M., Otmezguine Y., Calitchi E., Mazeron J.J., et al. Conservative treatment for breast cancer: long-term results (15 years). Radiother. Oncol. 20 (1991) 16-23
4. Pezner R.D., Patterson M.P., Hill L.R., Vora N., Desai K.R., Archambeau J.O., et al. Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11 (1985) 575-578
5. Sacchini V., Luini A., Tana S., Lozza L., Galimberti V., Merson M., et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer 27 (1991) 1395-1400
6. Sneeuw K.C., Aaronson N.K., Yarnold J.R., Broderick M., Ross J.R.G., and Goddard A. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. comparison of patients' ratings, observers' ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother. Oncol. 25 (1992) 153-159
7. Christie D.R.H., O'Brien M.-Y., Christie J.A., Kron T., Ferguson S.A., Hamilton C.S., et al. A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast 5 (1996) 358-367
8. Cardoso M.J., Santos A.C., Cardoso J.S., Barros H., and Oliveira M.C. Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 61 (2005) 879-881
9. Limbergen E.V., Schueren E.V., and Tongelen K.V. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother. Oncol. 16 (1989) 159-167
10. Al-Ghazal S.K., Blamey R.W., Stewart J., and Morgan A.L. The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 25 (1999) 566-570
11. Noguchi M., Saito Y., Mizukami Y., Nonomura A., Ohta N., Koyasaki N., et al. Breast deformity, its correction, and assessment of breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res. Treatment 18 (1991) 111-118
12. Clarke D., Martinez A., and Cox R.S. Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage i and ii breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 9 (1983) 1807-1813
13. Beadle G.F., Come S., Henderson I.C., Silver B., Hellman S., and Harris J.R. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the cosmetic results after primary radiation treatment for early stage breast cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 10 (1984) 2131-2137
14. Pezner R.D., Lipsett J.A., Vora N.L., and Desai K.R. Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 11 (1985) 1117-1119
15. Tsouskas L.I., and Fentiman I.S. Breast compliance: a new method for evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treatment 15 (1990) 185-190
16. Vrieling C., Collette L., Bartelink E., Borger J.H., Brenninkmeyer S.J., Horiot J.C., et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC boost versus no boost trial. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 45 (1999) 667-676
17. Al-Ghazal S.K., Fallowfield L., and Blamey R.W. Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 25 (1999) 344-346
18. Krishnan L., Stanton A.L., Collins C.A., Liston V.E., and Jewell W.R. Form or function? Part 2. Objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer 91 (2001) 2282-2287
19. Jones J., and Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br. Med. J. 311 (1995) 376-380
20. Hasson F., Keeney S., and McKenna H. Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. J. Adv. Nurs. 32 (2000) 1008-1015
21. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J.S., Santos A.C., Barros H., and Oliveira M.C. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast 15 (2006) 52-57
22. Cardoso M.J., Cardoso J.S., Santos A.C., Vrieling C., Christie D., Liljegren G., et al. Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast J. 13 2 (2007) 140-146
23. Duan J., and Qiu G. Novel histogram processing for colour image enhancement. Proceeding of the third international conference on image and graphics (ICIG'04). IEEE (2004) 55-58
24. Rubner Y., Puzich J., Tomasi C., and Buhmann J.M. Empirical evaluation of dissimilarity measures for color and texture. Comput. Vision Image Understanding 84 (2001) 25-43
25. Vapnik V.N. Statistical learning theory, ser. adaptive and learning systems for signal processing, communications, and control (1998), Wiley, New York
26. Cardoso J.S., da Costa J.F.P., and Cardoso M.J. Modelling ordinal relations with SVMs: an application to objective aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Neural Netw. 18 (2005) 808-817
27. Vapnik V.N. SVMs applied to objective aesthetic evaluation of conservative breast cancer treatment. Proceedings of the international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) 2005, vol. 4. IEEE, Montreal, Canada, August (2005) 2481-2486
28. Theodoridis S., and Koutroumbas K. Pattern recognition (2003), Academic Press, San Diego
29. Frank E., and Hall M. A simple approach to ordinal classification. Proceedings of the 12th European conference on machine learning, vol. 1. Springer (2001) 145-156
30. Hastie R.T., and Friedman R.T.J. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, ser. Springer series in statistics (2001), Springer, New York August
31. Press W., Flannery B., Teukolsky S., and Vetterling W. Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge