skip to main content
10.1145/2908961.2931733acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An Optimized Feed-forward Artificial Neural Network Topology to Support Radiologists in Breast Lesions Classification

Published:20 July 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Introduction and objective: Computer Aided Decision (CAD) systems based on Medical Imaging could support radiologists in classifying malignant regions from benign ones, in the field of investigation for breast cancer detection. This decision may often follow a previous procedure dedicated to the earlier identification of Regions Of Interest (ROI) containing still unclassified lesions.

Materials and methods: Materials comprise features extracted from magnetic resonance (MR) images representing morphological properties of lesions. The Regions Of Interest identified by a previous automatic procedure validated by radiologists of the University of Bari Aldo Moro (Italy), authors of this work, 134 from 600 slices considered of interest, because they contain still unclassified damaged areas. Several techniques were tested for ROI segmentation and classification. In particular, it can be shown that the same procedures for lesioned-area discrimination were also useful for malignancy classification of lesions, themselves. In particular, MR images were processed with different image processing techniques for ROI extraction, which were, ultimately, described by morphological features, such as circularity, aspect ratio, solidity and convexity. Finally, we discuss a procedure to design a feed-forward supervised artificial neural networks (ANN) architecture based on an evolutionary strategy. In a similar approach, different ANN topologies were tested in order to find the best in terms of mean accuracy for several iterations of training, validation and test. In particular, for each topology, the training, validation and test sets were constructed using 100 random permutations of the dataset, from which the average performances were calculated.

Results: The performance of the best ANN architecture, trained using a training set of 82 samples (equally divided between malignant and benign lesions) from the 134 samples available in the whole dataset, were evaluated in terms of accuracy, sensitivity and specificity.

Conclusion: Testing determined that the supervised ANN approach is consistent and reveals good performance; in particular, the optimal ANN topology found through an evolutionary strategy showed high generalization on the mean performance indexes regardless of training, validation and test sets applied, showing good performances in terms of both accuracy and sensitivity, permitting correct classification of the true malignant lesions.

References

  1. US Cancer Statistics Working Group et al. United states cancer statistics: 1999--2010 incidence and mortality web-based report. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. William H Wolberg, W Nick Street, and Olvi L Mangasarian. Image analysis and machine learning applied to breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Analytical and Quantitative cytology and histology, 17(2):77--87, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. William H Wolberg, W Nick Street, and Olvi L Mangasarian. Breast cytology diagnosis via digital image analysis. Analytical and Quantitative Cytology and Histology, 15(6):396--404, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Vitoantonio Bevilacqua. Three-dimensional virtual colonoscopy for automatic polyps detection by artificial neural network approach: New tests on an enlarged cohort of polyps. Neurocomputing, 116:62--75, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Olvi L Mangasarian, W Nick Street, and William H Wolberg. Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis via linear programming. Operations Research, 43(4):570--577, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Vitoantonio Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Mastronardi, and Filippo Menolascina. Hybrid data analysis methods and artificial neural network design in breast cancer diagnosis: Idest experience. In Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation, 2005 and International Conference on Intelligent Agents, Web Technologies and Internet Commerce, International Conference on, volume 2, pages 373--378. IEEE, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. William H Wolberg, W Nick Street, Dennis M Heisey, and Olvi L Mangasarian. Computer-derived nuclear features distinguish malignant from benign breast cytology. Human Pathology, 26(7):792--796, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Vitoantonio Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Mastronardi, Filippo Menolascina, Paolo Pannarale, and Antonio Pedone. A novel multi-objective genetic algorithm approach to artificial neural network topology optimisation: the breast cancer classification problem. In Neural Networks, 2006. IJCNN'06. International Joint Conference on, pages 1958--1965. IEEE, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sylvia H Heywang-Köbrunner and Richard W Katzberg. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Investigative radiology, 29(1):94--104, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Susan G Orel, Mitchell D Schnall, Virginia A LiVolsi, and Rosalind H Troupin. Suspicious breast lesions: Mr imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology, 190(2):485--493, 1994.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Wei Huang, Paul R Fisher, Khaldoon Dulaimy, Luminita A Tudorica, Brian O'Hea, and Terry M Button. Detection of breast malignancy: Diagnostic mr protocol for improved specificity 1. Radiology, 232(2):585--591, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. CK Kuhl. Mri of breast tumors. European radiology, 10(1):46--58, 2000.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. F Baum, U Fischer, R Vosshenrich, and E Grabbe. Classification of hypervascularized lesions in ce mr imaging of the breast. European radiology, 12(5):1087--1092, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ulf Hoffmann, Gunnar Brix, Michael V Knopp, Thomas Heβ, and Walter J Lorenz. Pharmacokinetic mapping of the breast: a new method for dynamic mr mammography. Magnetic resonance in medicine, 33(4):506--514, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hadassa Degani, Vadim Gusis, Daphna Weinstein, Scott Fields, and Shalom Strano. Mapping pathophysiological features of breast tumors by mri at high spatial resolution. Nature medicine, 3(7):780--782, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Susan G Orel. High-resolution mr imaging for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiographics, 18(4):903--912, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Paolo Belli, Melania Costantini, Enida Bufi, Andrea Magistrelli, Giuseppe La Torre, and Lorenzo Bonomo. Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast lesion evaluation. La radiologia medica, 115(1):51--69, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sibel Kul, Aysegul Cansu, Etem Alhan, Hasan Dinc, Gurbuz Gunes, and Abdulkadir Reis. Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced mri in the characterization of breast tumors. American Journal of Roentgenology, 196(1):210--217, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Marco Moschetta, Michele Telegrafo, Leonarda Rella, Arcangela Capolongo, Amato Antonio Stabile Ianora, and Giuseppe Angelelli. Mr evaluation of breast lesions obtained by diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (dwibs) and correlations with histological findings. Magnetic resonance imaging, 32(6):605--609, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Edward S Fobben, Carole Z Rubin, Lester Kalisher, Alan G Dembner, Murray H Seltzer, and Elissa J Santoro. Breast mr imaging with commercially available techniques: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology, 196(1):143--152, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Christiane Katharina Kuhl, Peter Mielcareck, Sven Klaschik, Claudia Leutner, Eva Wardelmann, Jürgen Gieseke, and Hans H Schild. Dynamic breast mr imaging: Are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? 1. Radiology, 211(1):101--110, 1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Christiane K Kuhl, Hans H Schild, and Nuschin Morakkabati. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced mr imaging of the breast: Trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution 1. Radiology, 236(3):789--800, 2005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Judith MS Prewitt. Object enhancement and extraction. Picture processing and Psychopictorics, 10(1):15--19, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. David B Fogel. An information criterion for optimal neural network selection. IEEE transactions on neural networks/a publication of the IEEE Neural Networks Council, 2(5):490--497, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Filippo Menolascina, Domenico Bellomo, Thomas Maiwald, Vitoantonio Bevilacqua, Caterina Ciminelli, Angelo Paradiso, and Stefania Tommasi. Developing optimal input design strategies in cancer systems biology with applications to microfluidic device engineering. BMC Bioinformatics, 10(S-12):4, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Vitoantonio Bevilacqua, Giuseppe Mastronardi, and Giuseppe Piscopo. Evolutionary approach to inverse planning in coplanar radiotherapy. Image Vision Comput., 25(2):196--203, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Martin Riedmiller and Heinrich Braun. A direct adaptive method for faster backpropagation learning: The rprop algorithm. In Neural Networks, 1993., IEEE International Conference on, pages 586--591. IEEE, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Kevin S Woods, Christopher C Doss, Kevin W Bowyer, Jeffrey L Solka, Carey E Priebe, and W Philip Kegelmeyer JR. Comparative evaluation of pattern recognition techniques for detection of microcalcifications in mammography. International Journal of Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence, 7(06):1417--1436, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Nitesh V. Chawla, Kevin W. Bowyer, Lawrence O. Hall, and W. Philip Kegelmeyer. Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique. Journal of artificial intelligence research, pages 321--357, 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Dennis Zill, Warren S Wright, and Michael R Cullen. Advanced engineering mathematics. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Andrew P Bradley. The use of the area under the roc curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern recognition, 30(7):1145--1159, 1997. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. An Optimized Feed-forward Artificial Neural Network Topology to Support Radiologists in Breast Lesions Classification

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            GECCO '16 Companion: Proceedings of the 2016 on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Companion
            July 2016
            1510 pages
            ISBN:9781450343237
            DOI:10.1145/2908961

            Copyright © 2016 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 20 July 2016

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            GECCO '16 Companion Paper Acceptance Rate137of381submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

            Upcoming Conference

            GECCO '24
            Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
            July 14 - 18, 2024
            Melbourne , VIC , Australia

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader