Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Feature subset selection for classification of malignant and benign breast masses in digital mammography

  • Survey
  • Published:
Pattern Analysis and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computer-aided diagnosis of breast cancer is becoming increasingly a necessity given the exponential growth of performed mammograms. In particular, the breast mass diagnosis and classification arouse nowadays a great interest. Texture and shape are the most important criteria for the discrimination between benign and malignant masses. Various features have been proposed in the literature for the characterization of breast masses. The performance of each feature is related to its ability to discriminate masses from different classes. The feature space may include a large number of irrelevant ones which occupy a lot of storage space and decrease the classification accuracy. Therefore, a feature selection phase is usually needed to avoid these problems. The main objective of this paper is to select an optimal subset of features in order to improve masses classification performance. First, a study of various descriptors which are commonly used in the breast cancer field is conducted. Then, selection techniques are used in order to determine the most relevant features. A comparative study between selected features is performed in order to test their ability to discriminate between malignant and benign masses. The database used for experiments is composed of mammograms from the MiniMIAS database. Obtained results show that Gray-Level Run-Length Matrix features provide the best result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Razavi AR, Gill H, Ahlfeldt H, Shahsavar N (2007) Predicting metastasis in breast cancer: comparing a decision tree with domain experts. J Med Syst 31:263–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Smart CR, Hendrick RE, Rutledge JH, Smith RA (1995) Benefit of mammography screening in women ages 40 to 49 years: current evidence from randomized controlled trials. Cancer 75:1619–1626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cady B, Michaelson JS (2001) The life-sparing potential of mammographic screening. Cancer 91:1699–1703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowes MP (2012) Digital mammography: process, guidelines, and potential advantages. eRadimaging. https://www.eradimaging.com/site/article.cfm

  5. Tabar L, Fagerberg C, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg L, Grontoft O, Ljungquist U, Lundstrom B, Manson J, Eklund G et al (1985) Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Lancet 1:829–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC (1992) Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 184:613–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. American Cancer Society (2003) Cancer prevention and early detection facts and figures. American Cancer Society, Atlanta

    Google Scholar 

  8. American College of Radiology, ACR BI-RADS (2003) Mammography, ultrasound & magnetic resonance imaging, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bozek J, Mustra M, Delac K, Grgic M (2009) A survey of image processing algorithms in digital mammography. J Recent Adv Multimedia Signal Process Commun 231:631–657

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Oliver A, Freixenet J, Mart J, Pérez E, Pont J, Denton ER et al (2010) A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images. Med Image Anal 14(2):87–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rojas Domnguez A, Nandi AK (2009) Toward breast cancer diagnosis based on automated segmentation of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recognit 42(6):1138–1148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tang J, Rangayyan RM, Xu J, El Naqa I, Yang Y (2009) ‘Computer-aided detection and diagnosis of breast cancer with mammography: recent advances. Inf Technol Biomed IEEE Trans IEEE 13(2):236–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Elter M, Horsch A (2009) CADx of mammographic masses and clustered microcalcifications a review. Med Phys Am Assoc Phys Med 36(6):2052–2068

    Google Scholar 

  14. Narváez F, Romero E (2012) Breast mass classification using orthogonal moments. In: Breast imaging. Springer, Berlin, pp 64–71

  15. Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, Dinstein I (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet SMC-3:610–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheng HD, Shi XJ, Min R, Hu LM, Cai XP, Du HN (2006) Approaches for automated detection and classification of masses in mammograms. Pattern Recognit 39:646–668

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Székely N, Tóth N, Pataki B (2006) A hybrid system for detecting masses in mammographic images. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas 55(3):944–952

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nunes AP, Silva AC, Paiva ACD (2010) Detection of masses in mammographic images using geometry, Simpson’s Diversity Index and SVM. Int J Signal Imaging Syst Eng Indersci 3(1):40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Khuzi AM, Besar R, Zaki WW, Ahmad N (2009) Identification of masses in digital mammogram using gray level co-occurrence matrices. Biomed Imaging Interv J 5(3):e17

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gonzalez RC, Woods RE (2002) Digital image processing. Prentice-Hall Inc, New Jersey, pp 76–142

    Google Scholar 

  21. Galloway MM (1975) Texture classification using gray level run length. Comput Graph Image Process 4:172–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tamura H, Mori S, Yamawaki T (1978) Texture features corresponding to visual perception. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Smc-8(6):460–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Manjunath BS, Ma WY (1996) Texture features for browsing and retrieval of large image data. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell (Spec Issue Digit Libr) 18(8):837–842

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rodrigues JF Jr, Traina AJM, Traina C Jr (2005) Enhanced visual evaluation of feature extractors for image mining. In: The 3rd ACS/IEEE international conference on computer systems and applications

  25. Tahir MA, Bouridane A, Kurugollu F (2007) Simultaneous feature selection and feature weighting using Hybrid Tabu Search/K-nearest neighbor classifier. Pattern Recognit Lett 28:438–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG (2001) Pattern classification, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Peng H, Long F, Ding C (2005) Feature selection based on mutual information: criteria of max-dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 27(8):1226–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vapnik V (1995) The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, Berlin

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Sun Y, Lou X, Bao B (2011) A novel relief feature selection algorithm based on mean-variance model. J Inf Comput Sci 8(16):3921–3929

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shalizi C (2010) Principal Component Analysis. Lecture Notes, 36–490, https://www.stat.cmu.edu/~cshalizi/490/10/pca/pca-handout.pdf.

  31. Suckling J et al (1994) ‘The mammographic image analysis society digital mammogram database. In: Exerpta Medica, international congress series 1069, pp 375–378

  32. Robnik-Šikonja M, Kononenko I (2003) Theoretical and empirical analysis of ReliefF and RReliefF. Mach Learn J 53:23–69

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LATIS- Laboratory of Advanced Technology and Intelligent Systems, ENISo, Sousse University, Sousse, Tunisia

    Ramzi Chaieb & Karim Kalti

Authors
  1. Ramzi Chaieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karim Kalti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramzi Chaieb.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chaieb, R., Kalti, K. Feature subset selection for classification of malignant and benign breast masses in digital mammography. Pattern Anal Applic 22, 803–829 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10044-018-0760-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10044-018-0760-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation