Computer-aided Diagnosis Applied to US of Solid Breast Nodules by Using Neural Networks

PURPOSE: To increase the capabilities of ultrasonographic (US) technology for the differential diagnosis of solid breast tumors by using a neural network.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred forty US images of solid breast nodules were evaluated. When a sonogram was obtained, an analog video signal from the VCR output of the scanner was transmitted to a notebook computer. A frame grabber connected to the printer port of the computer was then used to digitize the data. The suspicious tumor region on the digitized US image was manually selected. The texture information of the subimage was extracted, and a neural network classifier with autocorrelation features was used to classify the tumor as benign or malignant. In this experiment, 140 pathologically proved tumors (52 malignant and 88 benign tumors) were sampled with k-fold cross-validation (k = 10) to evaluate the performance with receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS: The accuracy of neural networks for classifying malignancies was 95.0% (133 of 140 tumors), the sensitivity was 98% (51 of 52), the specificity was 93% (82 of 88), the positive predictive value was 89% (51 of 57), and the negative predictive value was 99% (82 of 83).

CONCLUSION: This system differentiated solid breast nodules with relatively high accuracy and helped inexperienced operators to avoid misdiagnoses. Because the neural network is trainable, it could be optimized if a larger set of tumor images is supplied.


  • 1 Pisani P, Parkin DM, Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide mortality from eighteen major cancers in 1985: implications for prevention and projections of future burden. Int J Cancer 1993; 55:891-903. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Blickstein I, Goldchmit R, Strano SD, Goldman RD, Barzili N. Echogenicity of fibroadenoma and carcinoma of the breast: quantitative comparison using gain-assisted densitometric evaluation of sonograms. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14:661-664/LAST-PAGE>. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Blickstein I, Goldman R. The relation between different system gain settings and the accuracy of densitometric assessment of echogenicity. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13:675-678. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123-134/LAST-PAGE>. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gisvold JJ, Martin JK, Jr. Prebiopsy localization of nonpalpable breast lesions. AJR 1984; 143:477-481. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rosenberg AL, Schwartz GF, Feig SA, Patchefsky AS. Clinically occult breast lesions: localization and significance. Radiology 1987; 162:167-170. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bassett LW, Liu TH, Giuliano AE, Gold RH. The prevalence of carcinoma in palpable vs impalpable, mammographically detected lesions. AJR 1991; 157:21-24. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Petrick N, Chan HP, Sahiner B, Wei D. An adaptive density-weighted contrast enhancement filter for mammographic breast mass detection. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996; 15:59-67. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Dhawan AP, Chitre Y, Kaiser-Bonasso C, Moskowitz M. Analysis of mammographic microcalcifications using gray-level image structure features. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996; 15:246-259. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zheng B, Qian W, Clarke LP. Digital mammography: mixed feature neural network with spectral entropy decision for detection of microcalcifications. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996; 15:589-597. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sahiner B, Chan HP, Petrick N, Wei D, Helvi MA, Adler DD, Goodsitt MM. Classification of mass and normal breast tissue: a convolution neural network classifier with spatial domain and texture images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1996; 15:598-610. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Shankar PM, Reid JM, Ortega H, Piccoli CW, Goldberg BB. Use of non-Rayleigh statistics for identification of tumors in ultrasonic B-scans of the breast. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1993; 12:687-692. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Garra BS, Krasner BH, Horii SC, Ascher S, Muk SK, Zeman RK. Improving the distinction between benign and malignant breast lesions: the value of sonographic texture analysis. Ultrasound Imaging 1993; 15:267-285. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Choong PL, deSilva CJS, Dawkins HJS, Sterrett GF. Entropy maximization networks: an application to breast cancer prognosis. Neural Networks 1996; 7:568-577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning representation by back-propagation errors. Nature 1986; 323:533-536. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hirose Y, Yamashita K, Hijiva S. Back-propagation algorithm which varies the number of hidden units. Neural Networks 1991; 4:61-66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Gonzalez RC, Woods RE. Image compression In: Digital image processing. Reading, Mass: Wesley, 1992; 312-315. Google Scholar
  • 18 Weiss SM, Kapouleas I. An empirical comparison of pattern recognition neural nets and machine learning classification methods In: Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Detroit, Mich: IJCAI, 1989; 234-237. Google Scholar

Article History

Published in print: Nov 1999