Optimization of breast mass classification using sequential forward floating selection (SFFS) and a support vector machine (SVM) model - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Nov;9(6):1005-20.
doi: 10.1007/s11548-014-0992-1. Epub 2014 Mar 25.

Optimization of breast mass classification using sequential forward floating selection (SFFS) and a support vector machine (SVM) model

Affiliations

Optimization of breast mass classification using sequential forward floating selection (SFFS) and a support vector machine (SVM) model

Maxine Tan et al. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2014 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: Improving radiologists' performance in classification between malignant and benign breast lesions is important to increase cancer detection sensitivity and reduce false-positive recalls. For this purpose, developing computer-aided diagnosis schemes has been attracting research interest in recent years. In this study, we investigated a new feature selection method for the task of breast mass classification.

Methods: We initially computed 181 image features based on mass shape, spiculation, contrast, presence of fat or calcifications, texture, isodensity, and other morphological features. From this large image feature pool, we used a sequential forward floating selection (SFFS)-based feature selection method to select relevant features and analyzed their performance using a support vector machine (SVM) model trained for the classification task. On a database of 600 benign and 600 malignant mass regions of interest, we performed the study using a tenfold cross-validation method. Feature selection and optimization of the SVM parameters were conducted on the training subsets only.

Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [Formula: see text] was obtained for the classification task. The results also showed that the most frequently selected features by the SFFS-based algorithm in tenfold iterations were those related to mass shape, isodensity, and presence of fat, which are consistent with the image features frequently used by radiologists in the clinical environment for mass classification. The study also indicated that accurately computing mass spiculation features from the projection mammograms was difficult, and failed to perform well for the mass classification task due to tissue overlap within the benign mass regions.

Conclusion: In conclusion, this comprehensive feature analysis study provided new and valuable information for optimizing computerized mass classification schemes that may have potential to be useful as a "second reader" in future clinical practice.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Computer-aided diagnosis of mammograms; Feature selection; Pattern classification.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example of a malignant mass ROI and its corresponding segmentation mask
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Example of a benign mass ROI and its corresponding segmentation mask
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
An example of the vector field of the gradient of a circular region with a decreasing intensity along its radial axis. The computation of the divergence of the normalized gradient (DNG) of this region will produce a maximum value at the location of its center point
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
An example of the vector field of the gradient of a circular region with spicular texture or intensities. The computation of the curl of the normalized gradient (CNG) of this region will produce a maximum value at the location of its center point
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
A (a) malignant mass, (b) its original segmentation mask and (c) different regions defined for computation of the contrast-based features: I1 (innermost lighter gray region of the mass), I2 (white region of the mass adjacent to its contour), and O (darker gray background region). Three sets of contrast features are computed from (1) between O and I whereby I is the interior segment of the mass within its contour (I1 + I2), (2) between O and I1, and (3) between O and I2
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
ROC curves of the fast and accurate SFFS feature selection algorithm (SFFS), SVM trained with all features (All feas), and SFS based on a small within-class distance and a large between-class distance (SFS) of applying our image-based mass classification system to correctly classify the mass ROIs in our image database as benign or malignant. The computed AUC results and 95 confidence intervals are as follows – SFFS: 0.805 [0.779, 0.828]; All feas: 0.807 [0.782, 0.831] and SFS: 0.749 [0.721, 0.775].
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
A malignant mass, the maxima point where the DNG feature is maximal (red ‘cross’ marker; DNG = 3.5, computed at σ = 3.9), and the maxima point where the CNG feature is maximal (blue ‘plus’ marker; CNG = 6.8, computed at σ = 14.7)
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
A benign mass, the maxima point where the DNG feature is maximal (red ‘cross’ marker; DNG = 4.5, computed at σ = 6.6), and the maxima point where the CNG feature is maximal (blue ‘plus’ marker; CNG = 31.8, computed at σ = 31.7). The green ‘dot’ marker shows the location of another lower maxima point of the CNG, computed at the same scale as the other (blue) maxima point
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Examples of (a) first malignant mass (DNG = 10.9; CNG = 39.8), (b) second malignant mass (DNG = 4.6; CNG = 9.5), (c) third malignant mass (DNG = 4.4; CNG = 5.3), (d) first benign mass (DNG = 12.6; CNG = 10.2), (e) second benign mass (DNG = 1.6; CNG = 9.9), (f) third benign mass (DNG = 0; CNG = 8.8)
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Examples of (a) first malignant mass (DNG = 10.9; CNG = 39.8), (b) second malignant mass (DNG = 4.6; CNG = 9.5), (c) third malignant mass (DNG = 4.4; CNG = 5.3), (d) first benign mass (DNG = 12.6; CNG = 10.2), (e) second benign mass (DNG = 1.6; CNG = 9.9), (f) third benign mass (DNG = 0; CNG = 8.8)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2013. 2013 http://wwwcancerorg/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures201....
    1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;1;63:11–30. - PubMed
    1. Madigan MP, Ziegler RG, Benichou J, Byrne C, Hoover RN. Proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States explained by well-established risk factors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;22;87:1681–1685. - PubMed
    1. Amir E, Freedman OC, Seruga B, Evans DG. Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;10;102:680–691. - PubMed
    1. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology. 2002;3;224:861–869. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources