Textural kinetics: A novel dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI feature for breast lesion classification

Journal of Digital Imaging

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 446-463

  Agner, Shannon C ^a   Soman, Salil ^b   Libfeld, Edward ^b   McDonald, Margie ^b   Thomas, Kathleen ^c   Englander, Sarah ^c   Rosen, Mark A ^c   Chin, Deanna ^b   Nosher, John ^b   Madabhushi, Anant ^a  

^a RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; CAD; Cancer imaging; Classifier; DCE MRI; Diagnosis; Feature; MRI; Probabilistic boosting tree; Support vector machine; Textural kinetics; Texture; Tumor

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER IMAGING; DCE-MRI; FEATURE; PROBABILISTIC BOOSTING TREE; SUPPORT VECTOR;

CLASSIFIERS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DATA VISUALIZATION; DIAGNOSIS; DISEASES; KINETICS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PLANT EXTRACTS; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES; TEXTURES; TUMORS; VISUALIZATION;

MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

CONTRAST MEDIUM; DIAGNOSTIC AGENT; GADOLINIUM PENTETATE;

ALGORITHM; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; BREAST; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; KINETICS; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ALGORITHMS; AREA UNDER CURVE; BREAST; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; GADOLINIUM DTPA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; KINETICS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 80052876547     PISSN: 08971889     EISSN: 1618727X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10278-010-9298-1     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach MO, Lehman CD, Morris E, Pisano E, Schnall M, Sener S, Smith RA, Warner E, Yaffe M, Andrews KS, Russell CA: American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75-89, 2007.
2. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Viehweg P, Hienig A, Kuchler C: Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 24:94-108, 1997.
3. Sickles EA, Filly RA, Callen PA: Benign breast lesions: ultrasound detection and diagnosis. Radiology 151:467- 470, 1984.
4. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, Leutner C, Wardelmann E, Gieske J, Schild HH: Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions. Radiology 211:101-110, 1999.
5. Piccoli CW: Contrast-enhanced breast MRI: factors affecting sensitivity and specificity. Eur Radiol 7(Suppl. 5): S281-S288, 1997.
6. Nie K, Chen J-H, Yu HJ, Chu Y, Nalcioglu O, Su M-Y: Quantitative analysis of lesion morphology and texture features for diagnostic prediction in breast MRI. Acad Radiol 15:1513- 1525, 2008.
7. Ikeda DM, Hylton N, Kinkel K, Hochman MG, Kuhl C, Kaiser WA, Weinreb JC, Smazal SF, Degani H, Viehweg P, Barclay J, Schnall MD: Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:889-895, 2001.
8. American College of Radiology (ACR): Breast imaging reporting and data system atlas (BIRADS Atlas). American College of Radiology, Reston, 2003.
9. Kinkel K, Helbich TH, Esserman LJ, Barclay J, Schwerin E, Sickles EA, Hylton NM: Dynamic high-spatial-resolution MR imaging of suspicious breast lesion: diagnostic criteria and interobserver variability. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(1):35-43, 2000.
10. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bleumke DA, DeAngelis GA, DeBruhl N, Harms S, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Hylton N, Kuhl C, Pisano ED, Causer P, Schnitt SJ, Thickman D, Stelling CB, Weatherall PT, Lehman C, Gastonis CA: Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 238(1):42-53, 2006.
11. Li K-L, Henry R, Wilmes LJ, Gibbs J, Zhu X, Lu Y, Hylton NM: Kinetic assessment of breast tumors using high spatial resolution signal enhancement ratio (SER) imaging. Magn Reson Med 58(3):572-581, 2007.
12. Kuhl C:MRI of breast tumors. Eur J Radiol 10:46-58, 2000.
13. Chen W, Giger ML, Bick U, Newstead GM: Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesion on DCE-MRI. Med Phys 33(8):2878-2887, 2006.
14. Stoutjesdijk MJ, Veltman J, Huisman H, Karssemeijer N, Barentsz JO, Blickman JG, Boetes C: Automated analysis of contrast enhancement in breast MRI lesions using mean shift clustering for ROI selection. J Magn Reson Imaging 26(3):606- 614, 2007.
15. Szabo BK, Aspelin P, Wiberg MK: Neural network approach to the segmentation and classification of dynamic magnetic resonance images of the breast: comparison with empiric and quantitative kinetic parameters. Acad Radiol 11:1344-1354, 2004.
16. Twellmann T, Meyer-Baese A, Lange O, Foo S, Nattkemper TW: Model-free visualization of suspicious lesions in breast MRI based on supervised and unsupervised learning. Eng Appl Artif Intell 21:129-140, 2008.
17. Zheng Y, Englander S, Baloch S, Zacharaki EI, Fan Y, Schnall MD, Shen D: STEP: spatiotemporal enhancement pattern for MR-based breast tumor diagnosis. Med Phys 37 (7):3192-3204, 2009.
18. Woods BJ, Clymer BD, Kurc T, Heverhagen JT, Stevens R, Orsdemir A, Bulan O, Knopp MV: Malignant-lesion segmentation using 4D co-occurrence texture analysis applied to dynamic contast-enhanced magnetic resonance breast image data. J Magn Reson Imaging 25:495-501, 2007.
19. McLaren CE, Chen W-P, Nie K, Su M-Y: Prediction of malignant breast lesions from mri features: a comparison of artificial neural network and logistic regression techniques. Acad Radiol 16:842-851, 2009.
20. Meinel LA, Stolpen AH, Berbaum KS, Fajardo LL, Reinhardt JM: Breast MRI lesion classification: improved performance of human readers with a backpropagation neural network computer-aided (CAD) system. J Magn Reson Imaging 25(1):89-95, 2007.
21. Levman J, Leung T, Causer P, Plewes D, Martel AL: Classification of dynamic contast-enhanced magnetic resonance breast lesions by support vector mechines. IEEE Transact Med Imaging 27:688-696, 2008.
22. Penn A, Thompson S, Brem R, Lehman C, Weatherall P, Schnall M, Newstead G, Conant E, Ascher S, Morris E, Pisano E: Morphologic blooming in breast MRI as a characterization of margin for discriminating benign from malignant lesions. Acad Radiol 13:1344-1354, 2006.
23. Gibbs P, Turnbull LW: Texture analysis of contast-enhanced MR images of the breast. Magn Reson Med 50:92-98, 2003.
24. Degani H, Gusis V, Weinstein D, Fields S, Strano S: Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by MRI at high spatial resolution. Nat Med 3(7):780-782, 1997.
25. Weinstein D, Strano S, Cohen P, Fields S, Gomori JM, Degani H: Breast fibroadenoma: mapping of pathophysiologic features with three-time-point, contrast-enhanced MR imaging- pilot study. Radiology 210(1):233-240, 1999.
26. Hauth EAM, Jaeger H, Maderwald S, Muhler A, Kimmig R, Forsting M: Quantitative 2- and 3-dimensional analysis of pharmacokinetic model-derived variables for breast lesions in dynamic, contrast-enhanced MR mammography. Eur J Radiol 66(6):300-308, 2008.
27. Tofts PS, Berowitz B, Schnall MD: Quantitative analysis of dynamic Gd-DTPA enhancement in breast tumors using a permeability model. Magn Reson Med 33:564-568, 1995.
28. Martel AL: A fast method of generating pharmacokinetic maps from dynamic contrast-enhanced images of the breast. Int Conf Med Image Comput Comput Assist Interv 9(Pt 2):101-108, 2006.
29. Vignati A, Giannini V, Bert A, Deluca M, Morra L, Persano D, Martincich L, Regge D: A fully automatic lesion detection method for DCE-MRI fat-suppressed breast images. Proceedings of SPIE Medical Imaging, 2009.
30. Coto E, Grimm S, Bruckner S, Groller ME, Kanitsar A, Rodriguez O. MammoExplorer: an advanced CAD application for breast DCE-MRI. Proceedings of Vision, Modeling and Visualization, 2005.
31. Veltman J, Stoutjesdijk M, Mann R, Huisman HJ, Barentsz JO, Blickman JG, Boetes C: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: the value of pharmacokinetic parameters derived from fast dynamic imaging during initial enhancement in classifying lesions. Eur Radiol 18 (6):1123-1133, 2008.
32. Madabhushi A, Udupa JK, Souza A: Generalized scale: theory, algorithms, and application to image inhomogeneity. Comput Vis Image Underst 101(2):100-121, 2006.
33. Madabhushi A, Feldman M, Metaxas DN, Tomaszewski J, Chute D: Automated detection of prostate adenocarcinoma from high-resolution ex vivo MRI. IEEE Transact Med Imaging 24(12):1611-1625, 2005.
34. Kruizinga P, Petkov N: Nonlinear operator for oriented texture. IEEE Transact Image Process 8(10):1395-1407, 1999.
35. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein IH: Textural features for image classification. IEEE Transact Syst Man Cybernet 3(6):610-621, 1973.
36. Tiwari P, Rosen M, Madabhushi A: Dimensionality reduction scheme for detection of prostate cancer from magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). Med Phys 36(9):3927-3939, 2009.
37. Shi J, Malik J: Normalized cuts and image segmentation. IEEE Transact Pattern Anal Mach Intel 22(8):888-905, 2000.
38. Rorden C, Brett M: Stereotaxic display of brain lesions. Behav Neurol 12(4):191-200, 2000.
39. Gabor D.: Theory of communication. J Inst Elect Eng 93:429-457, 1946.
40. Grigorescu S, Petkov N, Kruizinga P: Comparison of texture features based on gabor filters. IEEE Transact Image Process 11:1160-1167, 2002.
41. Jain AK, Farrokhnia F: Unsupervised texture segmentation using Gabor filters. Proceedings IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp 14-19, 1990.
42. Street WN, Wolberg WH, Mangasarian OL: Nuclear feature extraction for breast tumor diagnosis. IS&T/SPIE 1999 International Symposium on Electrical Imaging: Science and Technology, Vol. 1905, pp 861-70, 1993.
43. Naik S, Doyle S, Feldman M, Tomaszewski J, Madabhushi A: Gland segmentation and computerized gleason grading of prostate histology by integrating low-, high-level and domain specific information. The Second International Workshop on Microscopic Image Analysis with Applications in Biology, 2007.
44. Chapelle O, Haffner P, Vapnik V: Support vector machines for histogram-based image segmentation. IEEE Transact Neural Network 10:1055-1064, 1999.
45. Lee G, Rodriguez C, Madabhushi A: Investigating the efficacy on nonlinear dimensionality reduction schemes in classifying gene and protein expression studies. IEEE/ACM Transact Comput Biol Bioinform 5:368-384, 2008.
46. Cortes C, Vapnik V: Support-vector networks. Mach Learn 20(3):273-297, 1995.
47. Freund Y, Schapire RE: A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting. J Comput Syst Sci 55:119-139, 1997.
48. Tu Z: Probabilistic boosting-tree: learning discriminative models for classification, recognition, and clustering. Proceedings of the Tenth IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Vol. 2, pp 1589-1596, 2005.
49. Chen W, Giger M, Lan L, Bick U: Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancementvariance dynamics. Med Phys 31:1076-1082, 2004.
50. Unay D, Ekin A, Cetin M, Jasinschi R, Ercil A: Robustness of local binary patterns in brain MR image analysis. Proceedings of the 29th Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS, 2098-2101, 2007.