CFP last date
20 December 2024
Reseach Article

Pectoral Muscle removal and Detection of masses in Digital Mammogram using CCL

by T.S.Subashini, V. Ramalingam, S. Palanivel
International Journal of Computer Applications
Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Volume 1 - Number 6
Year of Publication: 2010
Authors: T.S.Subashini, V. Ramalingam, S. Palanivel
10.5120/140-258

T.S.Subashini, V. Ramalingam, S. Palanivel . Pectoral Muscle removal and Detection of masses in Digital Mammogram using CCL. International Journal of Computer Applications. 1, 6 ( February 2010), 66-70. DOI=10.5120/140-258

@article{ 10.5120/140-258,
author = { T.S.Subashini, V. Ramalingam, S. Palanivel },
title = { Pectoral Muscle removal and Detection of masses in Digital Mammogram using CCL },
journal = { International Journal of Computer Applications },
issue_date = { February 2010 },
volume = { 1 },
number = { 6 },
month = { February },
year = { 2010 },
issn = { 0975-8887 },
pages = { 66-70 },
numpages = {9},
url = { https://ijcaonline.org/archives/volume1/number6/140-258/ },
doi = { 10.5120/140-258 },
publisher = {Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA},
address = {New York, USA}
}
%0 Journal Article
%1 2024-02-06T19:44:42.992616+05:30
%A T.S.Subashini
%A V. Ramalingam
%A S. Palanivel
%T Pectoral Muscle removal and Detection of masses in Digital Mammogram using CCL
%J International Journal of Computer Applications
%@ 0975-8887
%V 1
%N 6
%P 66-70
%D 2010
%I Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA
Abstract

A mammogram is a radiograph of the breast tissue. It is an effective non-invasive means of examining the breast, commonly searching for breast cancer. Cancer is not preventable, but early detection leads to a much higher chance of recovery and lowers the mortality rate. Due to the high volume of images to be analyzed by radiologists, and since senior radiologists are rare, the accuracy rate tends to decrease. This is reflected in the high percentage of unnecessary biopsies that are performed and many deaths caused by late detection or poor diagnosis. This paper proposes a computer aided diagnosis system for detecting masses in mammograms using connected component labeling(CCL). This paper also addresses the problem of eliminating and pectoral muscles from the mammogram before the detection process so that further processing is confined to the breast region alone.

References
  1. Giger ML. 2000. Computer-aided diagnosis in mammography. Handbook of Medical Imaging, Medical Imaging Processing and Analysis. SPIE, 2(2000), 915-1004.
  2. Maysam Shahedi B K,Rassoul Amirfattahi, Farah TorkamaniAzar, Saeed Sadri. Accurate Breast Region Detection In Digital Mammograms Using A Local Adaptive Thresholding Method. Eighth International Workshop On Image Analysis For Multimedia Interactive Services(Wiamis'07), 2006.
  3. Vincent L. 1993. Morphological grayscale reconstruction in image analysis: Applications and efficient algorithms. IEEE Trans in Image Processing. 2(1993), 176-201.
  4. Michael A. Wirth and Dennis Nikitenko. 2005. Suppression of Stripe Artifacts in Mammograms Using Weighted Median Filtering. ICIAR (2005), 966-973.
  5. TThor Ole Gulsrud et al., 2005. Wareshed Segmentation of Detected masses in digital mammograms. IEEE, Engineering in medicine and 27th annual conference. 3304-3307,
  6. Chang R. et. al., 2003. Detecting ROI using Morphological Bandpass Filter. IEEE Transaction on Information Technology in Biomedicine. 7-3(2003), 197-201
  7. Suckling J. et al., 1994. The Mammographic Image Analysis Society digital mammogram database. 2nd International Workshop on Digital Mammography, York, England. 375-378.
  8. Kobatake H. et al., 1999. Computerised detection of malignant tumors on digital mammograms. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.. 18(1999), 378-396.
  9. Zwiggelaar R. et al., 1999. Model based detection of spiculated lesions on digital mammograms. Medical Image Analysis. 3 -1(1999), 39-62.
  10. H.D. Li et al., 1995. Markov random field for tumor detection in digital mammography. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 14 (1995), 565-576.
  11. R. Mousa et al., 2005. Breast cancer diagnosis system based on wavelet analysis and fuzzy neural. Expert Systems with applications 28( 2005), 713-723.
  12. N.R. Mudigonda et al., 2000. Gradient & Texture analysis for the classification of Mammographic Masses. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 10(200),1032-1042.
  13. W.E. Polakowski et al., 1997. Computer-aided breast cancer detection and diagnosis of masses using difference of Gaussians and derivative based feature saliency. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging. 16(1997), 811-819.
  14. R.P. Velthuizen. 2000. Computer Description of Mammographic Masses. Proceedings of the 5th International workshop on Digital Mammography.
  15. M.D. Heath and K.W. Bowyer. 2000. Computer Description of Mammographic Masses. Proceedings of 5th International Workshop on Digital Mammography.(2000)
  16. Maria Victoria et al., 2006. Circumscribed Mass Detection in Digital Mammograms., Proceedings of the Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conference
  17. M. Sameti et al., 1997. Texture feature extraction for tumor detection in mammographic images. Pacific Rim Conference on Communications, Computers and Signal Processing. 3(1997), 831-834.
  18. Zhimin Huo, Maryellen L. Giger, Carl J. Vyborny, Charles E. Metz. 2002. Breast Cancer: Effectiveness of Computer-aided Diagnosis-Observer Study with Independent Database of Mammograms. Radiology, 224(2002), 560-56.
Index Terms

Computer Science
Information Sciences

Keywords

Digital mammogram morphological reconstruction blur filter connected component labeling segmentation mass detection