A New Markov Random Field Segmentation Method for Breast Lesion Segmentation in MR Images

Overview

Journal J Med Signals Sens

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2012 May 19

PMID 22606671

Citations 3

Authors

Reza Azmi

Narges Norozi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Breast cancer is a major public health problem for women in the Iran and many other parts of the world. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) plays a pivotal role in breast cancer care, including detection, diagnosis, and treatment monitoring. But segmentation of these images which is seriously affected by intensity inhomogeneities created by radio-frequency coils is a challenging task. Markov Random Field (MRF) is used widely in medical image segmentation especially in MR images. It is because this method can model intensity inhomogeneities occurring in these images. But this method has two critical weaknesses: Computational complexity and sensitivity of the results to the models parameters. To overcome these problems, in this paper, we present Improved-Markov Random Field (I-MRF) method for breast lesion segmentation in MR images. Unlike the conventional MRF, in the proposed approach, we don't use the Iterative Conditional Mode (ICM) method or Simulated Annealing (SA) for class membership estimation of each pixel (lesion and non-lesion). The prior distribution of the class membership is modeled as a ratio of two conditional probability distributions in a neighborhood which is defined for each pixel: probability distribution of similar pixels and non-similar ones. Since our proposed approach don't use an iterative method for maximizing the posterior probability, above mentioned problems are solved. Experimental results show that performance of segmentation in this approach is higher than conventional MRF in terms of accuracy, precision, and Computational complexity.

Citing Articles

Identification of breast lesion through integrated study of gorilla troops optimization and rotation-based learning from MRI images.

Si T, Patra D, Mallik S, Bandyopadhyay A, Sarkar A, Qin H Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):11577.

PMID: 37463919 PMC: 10354050. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36300-3.

Intra-abdominal fat: Comparison of computed tomography fat segmentation and bioimpedance spectroscopy.

Finch P Malawi Med J. 2017; 29(2):155-159.

PMID: 28955425 PMC: 5610288. DOI: 10.4314/mmj.v29i2.15.

Radiofrequency ablation of liver tumors: quantitative assessment of tumor coverage through CT image processing.

Passera K, Selvaggi S, Scaramuzza D, Garbagnati F, Vergnaghi D, Mainardi L BMC Med Imaging. 2013; 13:3.

PMID: 23324557 PMC: 3626768. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2342-13-3.

References

Kopans D . The positive predictive value of mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1992; 158(3):521-6. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.158.3.1310825. View

Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E . Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol. 1999; 17(1):110-9. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1999.17.1.110. View

Shi J, Sahiner B, Chan H, Ge J, Hadjiiski L, Helvie M . Characterization of mammographic masses based on level set segmentation with new image features and patient information. Med Phys. 2008; 35(1):280-90. PMC: 2728555. DOI: 10.1118/1.2820630. View

Eltonsy N, Tourassi G, Elmaghraby A . A concentric morphology model for the detection of masses in mammography. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2007; 26(6):880-9. DOI: 10.1109/TMI.2007.895460. View

Nie J, Xue Z, Liu T, Young G, Setayesh K, Guo L . Automated brain tumor segmentation using spatial accuracy-weighted hidden Markov Random Field. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2009; 33(6):431-41. PMC: 2739047. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2009.04.006. View

Zhang Y, Brady M, Smith S . Segmentation of brain MR images through a hidden Markov random field model and the expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2001; 20(1):45-57. DOI: 10.1109/42.906424. View

Chen W, Giger M, Lan L, Bick U . Computerized interpretation of breast MRI: investigation of enhancement-variance dynamics. Med Phys. 2004; 31(5):1076-82. DOI: 10.1118/1.1695652. View

Boetes C, Mus R, Holland R, Barentsz J, Strijk S, Wobbes T . Breast tumors: comparative accuracy of MR imaging relative to mammography and US for demonstrating extent. Radiology. 1995; 197(3):743-7. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480749. View

Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Harms S, Leach M, Lehman C . American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57(2):75-89. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75. View

10.

Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A . Comparison of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res. 2001; 3(1):55-60. PMC: 13900. DOI: 10.1186/bcr271. View

11.

Oliver A, Freixenet J, Marti J, Perez E, Pont J, R E Denton E . A review of automatic mass detection and segmentation in mammographic images. Med Image Anal. 2010; 14(2):87-110. DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2009.12.005. View

12.

Goldszal A, Davatzikos C, Pham D, Yan M, Bryan R, Resnick S . An image-processing system for qualitative and quantitative volumetric analysis of brain images. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998; 22(5):827-37. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199809000-00030. View

13.

Tourassi G . Journey toward computer-aided diagnosis: role of image texture analysis. Radiology. 1999; 213(2):317-20. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.213.2.r99nv49317. View

14.

Ertas G, Gulcur H, Osman O, Ucan O, Tunaci M, Dursun M . Breast MR segmentation and lesion detection with cellular neural networks and 3D template matching. Comput Biol Med. 2007; 38(1):116-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2007.08.001. View

15.

Geman S, Geman D . Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2012; 6(6):721-41. DOI: 10.1109/tpami.1984.4767596. View

16.

Held K, Kops E, Krause B, Wells 3rd W, Kikinis R . Markov random field segmentation of brain MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1998; 16(6):878-86. DOI: 10.1109/42.650883. View

17.

Rajapakse J, Giedd J, Rapoport J . Statistical approach to segmentation of single-channel cerebral MR images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1997; 16(2):176-86. DOI: 10.1109/42.563663. View

18.

Lucht R, Delorme S, Brix G . Neural network-based segmentation of dynamic MR mammographic images. Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 20(2):147-54. DOI: 10.1016/s0730-725x(02)00464-2. View

19.

Cui Y, Tan Y, Zhao B, Liberman L, Parbhu R, Kaplan J . Malignant lesion segmentation in contrast-enhanced breast MR images based on the marker-controlled watershed. Med Phys. 2009; 36(10):4359-69. PMC: 2768330. DOI: 10.1118/1.3213514. View

20.

Behrens S, Laue H, Althaus M, Boehler T, Kuemmerlen B, Hahn H . Computer assistance for MR based diagnosis of breast cancer: present and future challenges. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2007; 31(4-5):236-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2007.02.007. View