skip to main content
10.1145/3584371.3612983acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbcbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Breast-Density Semantic Segmentation with Probability Scaling for BI-RADS Assessment using DeepLabV3

Authors Info & Claims
Published:04 October 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Mammographic breast density is an early indicator of a patient's risk for breast cancer development. Although the direct cause is not fully understood, increased mammographic breast density increases the chance of developing breast cancer. Based on the density pattern exhibited, a patient's breast density score is assigned by a radiologist using one of four categories outlined by the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data Systems (BI-RADS). The subjective nature of pattern-based assessment of patient breast density can result in increased intra- and inter-rater variability. The identification of objective quantitative scoring systems for breast density lends the opportunity to provide patients and radiologists with increased granularity and precision over the four subjective BI-RADS classes. We propose a quantitative breast-density approach using semantic segmentation to assign each of a patient's breasts with a density value. Using the values for each breast, a patient-level density value can be used to determine the patient's placement on a linear density scale along with the probability that the patient belongs to each of the BI-RADS breast-density classes. We use accuracy and kappa scores to determine the performance of the algorithm with BI-RADS classification. Results show comparative classification and performance can be achieved between our semantic segmentation methodology and previous work which implemented a Vision Transformer (ViT)-based breast-density classification algorithm.

References

  1. [n. d.]. ACR statement on reporting breast density in mammography reports and patient summaries. https://www.acr.org/Advocacy-and-Economics/ACR-Position-Statements/Reporting-Breast-Density. Accessed: 2022-11-10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. [n. d.]. DenseBreast-info, Inc. Legislative information. https://densebreast-info.org/legislative-information Accessed: 2023-1-2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [n. d.]. Densitas. https://densitashealth.ca/solutions/density/ Accessed: 2023-1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. [n. d.]. PowerLook Density Assessment. https://www.icadmed.com/powerlook-density-assessment.html Accessed: 2023-1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. [n. d.]. Synthesized 2D Mammographic Imaging Theory and Clinical Performance. https://www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/C-View%20White%20Paper%2C%20Dr.%20Andrew%20Smith.pdf Accessed: 2023-1-5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. LW Bassett, IA Hirbawi, N DeBruhl, and MK Hayes. 1993. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box. Radiology 188, 3 (1993), 803--806.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. J W Byng, N F Boyd, E Fishell, R A Jong, and M J Yaffe. 1994. The quantitative analysis of mammographic densities. Phys. Med. Biol. 39, 10 (Oct. 1994), 1629--1638.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Liang-Chieh Chen, George Papandreou, Florian Schroff, and Hartwig Adam. 2017. Rethinking Atrous Convolution for Semantic Image Segmentation. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Stefano Ciatto, Daniela Bernardi, Massimo Calabrese, Manuela Durando, Maria Adalgisa Gentilini, Giovanna Mariscotti, Francesco Monetti, Enrica Moriconi, Barbara Pesce, Antonella Roselli, Carmen Stevanin, Margherita Tapparelli, and Nehmat Houssami. 2012. A first evaluation of breast radiological density assessment by QUANTRA software as compared to visual classification. Breast 21, 4 (Aug. 2012), 503--506.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Lee R Dice. 1945. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26, 3 (July 1945), 297--302.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. C D'orsi, E A Sickles, E B Mendelson, and E A Morris. 2013. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS breast imaging atlas. American College of Radiology, Reston, Va.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Carl D'Orsi, L Bassett, S Feig, et al. 2018. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Breast imaging atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Mikael Eriksson, Kamila Czene, Yudi Pawitan, Karin Leifland, Hatef Darabi, and Per Hall. 2017. A clinical model for identifying the short-term risk of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 19, 1 (Dec. 2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Lewis I Held, Jr. 2009. SYMMETRY AND ASYMMETRY. In Quirks of Human Anatomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 17--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Itseez. 2015. Open Source Computer Vision Library. https://github.com/itseez/opencv.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Davood Karimi, Haoran Dou, Simon K Warfield, and Ali Gholipour. 2020. Deep learning with noisy labels: Exploring techniques and remedies in medical image analysis. Med. Image Anal. 65, 101759 (Oct. 2020), 101759.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Brad M Keller, Jinbo Chen, Dania Daye, Emily F Conant, and Despina Kontos. 2015. Preliminary evaluation of the publicly available Laboratory for Breast Radiodensity Assessment (LIBRA) software tool: comparison of fully automated area and volumetric density measures in a case-control study with digital mammography. Breast Cancer Res. 17, 1 (Dec. 2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Jingmei Li, Laszlo Szekely, Louise Eriksson, Boel Heddson, Ann Sundbom, Kamila Czene, Per Hall, and Keith Humphreys. 2012. High-throughput mammographic-density measurement: a tool for risk prediction of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 14, 4 (Aug. 2012).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2014. Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2014, David Fleet, Tomas Pajdla, Bernt Schiele, and Tinne Tuytelaars (Eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 740--755.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Chen-Chung Liu, Chung-Yen Tsai, Jui Liu, Chun-Yuan Yu, and Shyr-Shen Yu. 2012. A pectoral muscle segmentation algorithm for digital mammograms using Otsu thresholding and multiple regression analysis. Computers and Mathematics with Applications 64, 5 (2012), 1100--1107. Advanced Technologies in Computer, Consumer and Control. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Ann B Nattinger and Julie L Mitchell. 2016. Breast cancer screening and prevention. Ann. Intern. Med. 164, 11 (June 2016), ITC81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Kwan-Hoong Ng, Cheng-Har Yip, and Nur Aishah Mohd Taib. 2012. Standardisation of clinical breast-density measurement. Lancet Oncol. 13, 4 (April 2012), 334--336.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Arnau Oliver, Meritxell Tortajada, Xavier Lladó, Jordi Freixenet, Sergi Ganau, Lidia Tortajada, Mariona Vilagran, Melcior Sentís, and Robert Martí. 2015. Breast density analysis using an automatic density segmentation algorithm. J. Digit. Imaging 28, 5 (Oct. 2015), 604--612.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. E A Ooms, H M Zonderland, M J C Eijkemans, M Kriege, B Mahdavian Delavary, C W Burger, and A C Ansink. 2007. Mammography: Interobserver variability in breast density assessment. Breast 16, 6 (Dec. 2007), 568--576.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Shivaji Pawar, Suhas Sapate, and Kamal Sharma. 2020. Machine learning approach towards mammographic breast density measurement for breast cancer risk prediction: An overview. SSRN Electron. J. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Payam Refaeilzadeh, Lei Tang, and Huan Liu. 2009. Cross-Validation. Encyclopedia of Database Systems 532--538 (01 2009), 532--538. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Conrad Testagrose, Vikash Gupta, Barbaros S. Erdal, Richard D. White, Robert W. Maxwell, Xudong Liu, Indika Kahanda, Sherif Elfayoumy, William Klostermeyer, and Mutlu Demirer. 2022. Impact of Concatenation of Digital Craniocaudal Mammography Images on a Deep-Learning Breast-Density Classifier Using Inception-V3 and ViT. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). 3399--3406. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Mohammad Usman, Tehseen Zia, and Ali Tariq. 2022. Analyzing transfer learning of vision transformers for interpreting chest radiography. J. Digit. Imaging (July 2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. C H van Gils, J D Otten, A L Verbeek, and J H Hendriks. 1998. Mammographic breast density and risk of breast cancer: masking bias or causality? Eur. J. Epidemiol. 14, 4 (June 1998), 315--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. John N. Wolfe. 1976. Risk for breast cancer development determined by mammographic parenchymal pattern. Cancer 37, 5 (1976), 2486--2492. <2486::AID-CNCR2820370542>3.0.CO;2-8 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Breast-Density Semantic Segmentation with Probability Scaling for BI-RADS Assessment using DeepLabV3

    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
      BCB '23: Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology, and Health Informatics
      September 2023
      626 pages
      ISBN:9798400701269
      DOI:10.1145/3584371

      Copyright © 2023 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 the author(s) 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: 4 October 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate254of885submissions,29%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)50
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader