Computer-aided diagnosis of mass-like lesion in breast MRI: Differential analysis of the 3-D morphology between benign and malignant tumors

Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine

Volumn 112, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 508-517

  Huang, Yan Hao ^a   Chang, Yeun Chung ^b   Huang, Chiun Sheng ^b   Wu, Tsung Ju ^a   Chen, Jeon Hor ^c,d   Chang, Ruey Feng ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d E DA HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

3 D morphology; Co occurrence matrix; Computer aided diagnosis; Ellipsoid fitting

Indexed keywords

BENIGN AND MALIGNANT TUMORS; CLASSIFICATION ACCURACY; CO-OCCURRENCE-MATRIX; DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS; ELLIPSOID-FITTING; GRAY LEVEL CO-OCCURRENCE MATRIX; MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC CURVES;

COMPUTER AIDED DIAGNOSIS; TUMORS;

MORPHOLOGY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORPHOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TUMOR DIFFERENTIATION; TUMOR VOLUME;

3-D MORPHOLOGY; CO-OCCURRENCE MATRIX; COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS; ELLIPSOID-FITTING;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

EID: 84885423412     PISSN: 01692607     EISSN: 18727565     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2013.08.016     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bluemke D.A., Gatsonis C.A., Chen M.H., DeAngelis G.A., DeBruhl N., Harms S., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004, 292:2735-2742.
2. Warner E., Plewes D.B., Shumak R.S., Catzavelos G.C., Di Prospero L.S., Yaffe M.J., et al. Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2001, 19:3524-3531.
3. Kuhl C.K., Schild H.H. Dynamic image interpretation of MRI of the breast. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2000, 12:965-974.
4. Lehman C.D., Gatsonis C., Kuhl C.K., Hendrick R.E., Pisano E.D., Hanna L., et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356:1295-1303.
5. Ikeda D.M., Hylton N.M., Kinkel K., Hochman M.G., Kuhl C.K., Kaiser W.A., et al. Development, standardization, and testing of a lexicon for reporting contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging studies. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2001, 13:889-895.
6. Agrawal G., Su M.Y., Nalcioglu O., Feig S.A., Chen J.H. Significance of breast lesion descriptors in the ACR BI-RADS MRI lexicon. Cancer 2009, 115:1363-1380.
7. Morris E., Liberman L. Breast MRI: Diagnosis and Intervention 2005, Springer, City.
8. Bhooshan N., Giger M.L., Jansen S.A., Li H., Lan L., Newstead G.M. Cancerous breast lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images: computerized characterization for image-based prognostic markers. Radiology 2010, 254:680-690.
9. Baltzer P.A.T., Vag T., Dietzel M., Beger S., Freiberg C., Gajda M., et al. Computer-aided interpretation of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging reflects histopathology of invasive breast cancer. Eur. Radiol. 2010, 20:1563-1571.
10. Chen W.J., Giger M.L., Bick U., Newstead G.M. Automatic identification and classification of characteristic kinetic curves of breast lesions on DCE-MRI. Med. Phys. 2006, 33:2878-2887.
11. Nunes L.W., Schnall M.D., Siegelman E.S., Langlotz C.P., Orel S.G., Sullivan D., et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1997, 169:409-415.
12. Vassiou K., Kanavou T., Vlychou M., Poultsidi A., Athanasiou E., Arvanitis D.L., et al. Characterization of breast lesions with CE-MR multimodal morphological and kinetic analysis: comparison with conventional mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Eur. J. Radiol. 2009, 70:69-76.
13. Lee S., Cho N., Kim S., Cha J., Cho K., Ko E., et al. Correlation between high resolution dynamic MR features and prognostic factors in breast cancer. Korean J. Radiol. 2008, 9:10.
14. Chang Y.W., Kwon K.H., Choi D.L., Lee D.W., Lee M.H., Lee H.K., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer and correlation with prognostic factors. Acta Radiol. 2009, 50:990-998.
15. Tozaki M. Interpretation of breast MRI: correlation of kinetic and morphological parameters with pathological findings. Magn. Reson. Med. Sci. 2004, 3:189-197.
16. Chen W., Giger M.L., Li H., Bick U., Newstead G.M. Volumetric texture analysis of breast lesions on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance images. Magn. Reson. Med. 2007, 58:562-571.
17. Haralick R.M., Shanmuga K., Dinstein I. Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Smc3 1973, 610-621.
18. Meinel L.A., Stolpen A.H., Berbaum K.S., Fajardo L.L., Reinhardt J.M. Breast MRI lesion classification: improved performance of human readers with a backpropagation neural network computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2007, 25:89-90.
19. Yeh E.D. Breast magnetic resonance imaging: current clinical indications. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am. 2010, 18(vii):155-169.
20. Boetes C. Update on screening breast MRI in high-risk women. Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am. 2010, 18(viii):241-247.
21. Saha P.K., Udupa J.K., Odhner D. Scale-based fuzzy connected image segmentation: theory, algorithms, and validation. Comput. Vis. Image Underst. 2000, 77:145-174.
22. Udupa J.K., Samarasekera S. Fuzzy connectedness and object definition: theory, algorithms, and applications in image segmentation. Graph. Models Image Proc. 1996, 58:246-261.
23. Shen W.C., Chang R.F., Moon W.K. Computer aided classification system for breast ultrasound based on breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2007, 33:1688-1698.
24. Berber T., Alpkocak A., Balci P., Dicle O. Breast mass contour segmentation algorithm in digital mammograms. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2013, 110:150-159.
25. Ghose S., Oliver A., Marti R., Llado X., Vilanova J.C., Freixenet J., et al. A survey of prostate segmentation methodologies in ultrasound, magnetic resonance and computed tomography images. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2012, 108:262-287.
26. Bribiesca E. An easy measure of compactness for 2D and 3D shapes. Pattern Recognit. 2008, 41:543-554.
27. Haralick R.M. Statistical structural approaches to texture. Proceedings of the IEEE 1979, 67:786-804.
28. Sun T., Wang J., Li X., Lv P., Liu F., Luo Y., et al. Comparative evaluation of support vector machines for computer aided diagnosis of lung cancer in CT based on a multi-dimensional data set. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2013, 111:519-524.
29. Acharya U.R., Faust O., Sree S.V., Molinari F., Suri J.S. ThyroScreen system: high resolution ultrasound thyroid image characterization into benign and malignant classes using novel combination of texture and discrete wavelet transform. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2012, 107:233-241.
30. Moon W.K., Shen Y.W., Huang C.S., Chiang L.R., Chang R.F. Computer-aided diagnosis for the classification of breast masses in automated whole breast ultrasound images. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2011, 37:539-548.
31. Antonios D., Dimitrios V.A., Theoharis T. A new user-friendly visual environment for breast MRI data analysis. Comput. Methods Prog. Biomed. 2013, 110:411-423.
32. Mulchrone K.F., Choudhury K.R. Fitting an ellipse to an arbitrary shape: implications for strain analysis. J. Struct. Geol. 2004, 26:143-153.
33. Ulanovsky A., Prohl G. A practical method for assessment of dose conversion coefficients for aquatic biota. Radiat. Environ. Biophys. 2006, 45:203-214.
34. Field A.P. Discovering Statistics using SPSS (and sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll) 2005, Sage Publications, City.
35. Bengio Y., Grandvalet Y. No unbiased estimator of the variance of K-fold cross-validation. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2004, 5:1089-1105.
36. Pisano E.D., Hendrick R.E., Yaffe M.J., Baum J.K., Acharyya S., Cormack J.B., et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008, 246:376-383.
37. Tozaki M., Fukuda K. High-spatial-resolution MRI of non-masslike breast lesions: interpretation model based on BI-RADS MRI descriptors. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006, 187:330-337.