Physics Diagnostic efficacy of all series of dynamic contrast enhanced breast MR images using Gradient Vector Flow (GVF) segmentation and novel border feature extraction for differentiation between malignant and benign breast lesions

Iranian Journal of Radiology

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 225-234

  Bahreini, L ^a   Fatemizadeh, E ^a   Guity, M ^b  

^a ISLAMIC AZAD UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

^b TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES   (Iran)

Author keywords

BS DCE MRI; Enhancement Sign; Fourier Factor; GVF Snake Segmentation; ROC Analysis

Indexed keywords

GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ANALYTIC METHOD; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST CANCER; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; GRADIENT VECTOR FLOW METHOD; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TUMOR DIAGNOSIS;

EID: 79952582862     PISSN: 17351065     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Liney GP, Sreenvias M, Gibbs P, Garcia-Alvarez R, Turnbull LW. Breast lesion analysis of shape technique: semiautomated vs. manual morphological description. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006 Apr; 23(4): 493-8.
2. Starita A, LaManna S, Majidi D, Caramella D, Cilotti A. Magnetic resonance in mammography: a quantitative evaluation tool of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance of the breast. In: Institution of Electrical Engineers, Institute of Physics (Great Britain), British Medical Informatics Society, European Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. First international conference on advances in medical signal and information processing. Piscataway, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2000. p. 200-5.
3. Mumtaz H, Hall-Craggs MA, Davidson T, Walmsley K, Thurell W, Kissin MW et al. Staging of symptomatic primary breast cancer with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997 Aug; 169(2): 417-24.
4. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E. Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 1999 Dec; 213(3): 881-8.
5. Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999 Jan; 17(1): 110-9.
6. Zhang Y, Fukatsu H, Naganawa S, Satake H, Sato Y, Ohiwa M et al. The role of contrast-enhanced MR mammography for determining candidates for breast conservation surgery. Breast Cancer 2002; 9(3): 231-9.
7. Rieber A, Schirrmeister H, Gabelmann A, Nuessle K, Reske SN, Kreienberg R et al. Pre-operative staging of invasive breast cancer with MR mammography and/or PET: boon or bunk? Br J Radiol 2002 Oct; 75(898): 789-98.
8. Schelfout K, Van GM, Kersschot E, Colpaert C, Schelfhout AM, Leyman P et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast lesions and effect on treatment. Eur J Surg Oncol 2004 Jun; 30(5): 501-7.
9. Wedegartner U, Bick U, Wortler K, Rummeny E, Bongartz G. Differentiation between benign and malignant findings on MR- mammography: usefulness of morphological criteria. Eur Radiol 2001; 11 (9): 1645-50.
10. Mussurakis S, Buckley DL, Coady AM, Turnbull LW, Horsman A. Observer variability in the interpretation of contrast enhanced MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol 1996 Nov; 69(827): 1009-16.
11. Gilhuijs KG, Giger ML, Bick U. Computerized analysis of breast lesions in three dimensions using dynamic magnetic-resonance imaging. Med Phys 1998 Sep; 25(9): 1647-54.
12. Gibbs P, Turnbull LW. Textural analysis of contrast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Magn Reson Med 2003 Jul; 50(1): 92-8.
13. Chen W, Giger ML, Lan L, Bick U. Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med Phys 2004 May; 31(5): 1076-82.
14. Meinel LA, Stolpen AH, Berbaum KS, Fajardo LL, Reinhardt JM. Breast MRI lesion classification: improved performance of human readers with a back propagation neural network computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 Jan; 25(1): 89-95.
15. Chen W, Giger ML, Bick U. A fuzzy c-means (FCM)-based approach for computerized segmentation of breast lesions in dynamic contrast enhanced MR images. Acad Radiol 2006 Jan; 13(1): 63-72.
16. Chen W, Giger ML, Bick U, Newstead GM. Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI. Med Phys 2006 Aug; 33(8): 2878-87.
17. Chen W, Giger ML, Li H, Bick U, Newstead GM. Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. Magn Reson Med 2007 Sep; 58(3): 562-71.
18. Ertas G, Gülçür HÖ, Osman O, Uçan ON, Tunaci M, Dursun M. Breast MR segmentation and lesion detection with cellular neural networks and 3D template matching. Comput Biol Med 2008 Jan; 38(1): 116-26.
19. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieseke et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 1999 Apr; 211(1): 101-10.
20. Nie K, Chen JH, Yu HJ, Chu Y, Nalcioglu O, Su MY. Quantitative analysis of lesion morphology and texture features for diagnostic prediction in breast MRI. Acad Radiol 2008 Dec; 15(12): 1513-25.
21. Woods BJ, Clymer BD, Kurc T, Heverhagen JT, Stevens R, Orsdemir A et al. Malignant-lesion segmentation using 4D co-occurrence texture analysis applied to dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance breast image data. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 Mar; 25(3): 495-501.
22. Kuhl CK. MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 2000; 10(1): 46-58.
23. Rangayyan RM, El-Faramawy NM, Desautels JEL, Alim OA. Measures of acutance and shape for classification of breast tumors. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997 Dec; 16(6): 799-810.
24. Behrens S, Laue H, Althaus M, Boehler T, Kuemmerlen B, Hahn HK et al. Computer assistance for MR based diagnosis of breast cancer: present and future challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2007 Jun-Jul; 31(4-5): 236-47.
25. He L, Peng Z, Everding B, Wang X, Han CY, Weiss KL et al. A comparative study of deformable contour methods on medical image segmentation. Image Vis Comput 2008; 26(2): 141-63.
26. Xu C, Prince JL. Snakes, shapes, and gradient vector flow. IEEE Trans Image Process 1998; 7(3): 359-69.
27. Bahreini L, Fatemizadeh E, Gity M. Gradient vector flow snake segmentation of breast lesions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images. The 17th Iranian Conference on Biomedical Engineering (ICBME), 2010 Nov 3-4; Isfahan, Iran.
28. Jain AK. Fundamentals of digital image processing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1989.
29. Courant R, Hilbert D. Methods of mathematical physics. vol 1. New York: Interscience; 1953.
30. Kass M, Witkin A, Terzopoulos D. Snakes: active contour models. Int J Comput Vis 1987; 1: 321-31.
31. Xu Ch, Prince Jerry L. Active contours, deformable models, and gradient vector flow. Available at: http://iacl.ece.jhu.edu/projects/ gvf/. Accessed May 2, 2009.
32. El-ghazal A, Basir O, Belkasim S. Farthest point distance: a new shape signature for Fourier descriptors. Signal Process Image Comm 2009 Aug; 24(7): 572-86.
33. Rangayyan RM, Nguyen TM. Fractal analysis of contours of breast masses in mammograms. J Digit Imaging 2007 Sep; 20(3): 223-37.
34. Shen L, Rangayyan RM, Desautels JEL. Detection and classification of mammographic calcifications. Int J Pattern Recogn Artif Intell 1993; 7(6): 1403-16.
35. Kaiser WA. Signs in MR-Mammography. Germany, Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2008.
36. McLaren CE, Chen WP, Nie K, SU MY. Prediction of malignant breast lesion from MRI features: A comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression techniques. Acad Radiol 2009 Jul; 16(7): 842-51.