Review of Different Methods of Abnormal Mass Detection in Digital Mammograms

Sangita Bhattacharjee; Sandeep Poddar; Amiya Bhaumik; Indra Kanta Maitra; Dewi Susanna; Andrew Ware

doi:10.21109/kesmas.v17isp1.5970

Review of Different Methods of Abnormal Mass Detection in Digital Mammograms

Sangita Bhattacharjee, Sandeep Poddar, Amiya Bhaumik, Indra Kanta Maitra, Dewi Susanna, Andrew Ware

Abstract

Various images from massive image databases extract inherent, implanted information or different examples explicitly found in the images. These images may help the community in initial self-screening breast cancer, and primary health care can introduce this method to the community. This study aimed to review the different methods of abnormal mass detection in digital mammograms. One of best methods for the detection of breast malignancy and discovery at a nascent stage is digital mammography. Some of the mammograms with excellent images have a high intensity of resolution that enables preparing images with high computations. The fact that medical images are so common on computers is one of the main things that helps radiologists make diagnoses. Image preprocessing highlights the portion after extraction and arrangement in computerized mammograms. Moreover, the future scope of examination for paving could be the way for a top invention in computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) for mammograms in the coming years. This also distinguished CAD that helped identify strategies for mass widely covered in the study work. However, the identification methods for structural deviation in mammograms are complicated in real-life scenarios. These methods will benefit the public health program if they can be introduced to primary health care's public health screening system. The decision should be made as to which type of technology fits the level of the primary health care system.

Keywords

breast cancer, computer-aided diagnosis, digital mammography, feature extraction

Full Text:

PDF

References

1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal For Clinicians. 2021; 71 (3): 209-49.

2. Lee H, Chen YP. Image based computer aided diagnosis system for cancer detection. Expert Systems with Applications. 2015; 42 (12): 5356-65.

3. Senthilkumar B, Umamaheswari G, Karthik J. A novel region growing segmentation algorithm for the detection of breast cancer. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Computing Research; 2010.

4. Gouda W, Selim MM, Elshishtawy T. An approach for breast cancer mass detection in mammograms; 2012.

5. Maitra IK, Nag S, Bandyopadhyay SK. Automated digital mammogram segmentation for detection of abnormal masses using binary homogeneity enhancement algorithm. J Comput Sci Eng. 2011; 2 (3):416-27.

6. Divyadarshini K, Vanithamani R, Sharmila S. Classification of mammographic masses using fuzzy inference system; 2015.

7. Cheng HD, Lui YM, Freimanis RI. A novel approach to microcalcification detection using fuzzy logic technique. IEEE transactions on medical imaging. 1998; 17 (3): 442-50.

8. Malek J, Sebri A, Mabrouk S, Torki K, Tourki R. Automated breast cancer diagnosis based on GVF-snake segmentation, wavelet features extraction and fuzzy classification. Journal of Signal Processing Systems. 2009; 55 (1): 49-66.

9. Jangala JK, Reddy GH. Detection of masses in digital mammogram using gabor based edge detection method. International Journal of Industrial Electronics and Electrical Engineering. 2014; 2 (12).

10. Halkiotis S, Botsis T, Rangoussi M. Automatic detection of clustered microcalcifications in digital mammograms using mathematical morphology and neural networks. Signal Processing. 2007; 87 (7): 1559-68.

11. Li H, Liu KR, Lo SC. Fractal modeling and segmentation for the enhancement of microcalcifications in digital mammograms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 1997; 16 (6): 785-98.

12. Akila K, Sumathy P. Early breast cancer tumor detection on mammogram images. International Journal Computer Science, Engineering, and Technology. 2015; 5 (9): 334-6.

13. Dong A, Senad S. Comparison of single image processing and bilateral image feature subtraction in breast cancer detection. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Science. The Steering Committee of The World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Applied Computing (WorldComp); 2011.

14. Eddaoudi F, Regragui F, Laraki K. Characterization of the normal mammograms based on statistical features. Energy. 2006; 3 (4): 5.

15. Suliga M, Deklerck R, Nyssen E. Markov random field-based clustering applied to the segmentation of masses in digital mammograms. Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics. 2008; 32 (6): 502-12.

16. Hassan NM, Hamad S, Mahar K. Mammogram breast cancer CAD systems for mass detection and classification: a review. Multimedia Tools and Applications. 2022: 1-33.

17. Oza P, Sharma P, Patel S, Bruno A. A bottom-up review of image analysis methods for suspicious region detection in mammograms. Journal of Imaging. 2021; 7 (9): 190.

18. Shen Y, Shamout FE, Oliver JR, Witowski J, Kannan K, Park J, et al. Artificial intelligence system reduces false-positive findings in the interpretation of breast ultrasound exams. Nature Communications. 2021; 12 (1): 1-3.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21109/kesmas.v17isp1.5970