Keywords
             | 
        
        
            | Mammograms, Breast cancer, Enhancement, Micro-calcifications, Fusion, DCT, DWT. | 
        
        
            
            Introduction
             | 
        
        
            | Breast cancer is the frequently diagnosed cancer, other than       skin cancer, amongst females in U.S [1,2]. It is also forecasted       that the breast cancer can be the foremost cause of casualties       during forthcoming decades [3,4]. Various studies have       demonstrated that early detection and proper treatment of       breast cancer may diminish the mortality rate [5,6].       Mammography cannot stop or decrease breast cancer but are       supportive only in detecting the breast cancer at early stages to       increase the survival rate [2,6]. Regular screening can be a       successful strategy to identify the early symptoms of breast     cancer in mammographic images [7]. | 
        
        
            | Enhancement of digital images is the foremost challenging task       in computerized diagnosis of breast cancer using       mammographic images [8,9]. Because of low contrast results       [10], it is complicated to handle two major concerns namely;       false-positive interpretations [11] and false-negative results       [12]. False-positive results lead to surgeries with benign (noncancerous)       conditions. False-negatives let the early stage       disease to develop to a more complicated stage with fewer       rates of survival. Recently, an assortment of computer-aided       methods have been examined and yielded different levels of       success for the analysis of digital mammograms. They aim at       highlighting to areas of interests like lesions, masses, etc,       making them visible to the radiologists which are helpful in       increasing the likelihood of early detection of breast cancer     from mammographic images. | 
        
        
            | For noise restoration from mammograms, a method has been       introduced by Naveed et al. [13] which are supposed to address     this problem by combining various filters and neural network based noise detection. An adaptive technique based on wavelet     transform was proposed by Scharcanski [14] in order to restore     the noise from mammograms; a mammogram image is     decomposed into many scales and at each scale, coefficients     related to noise are modeled by generalized Gaussian random     variables and the shrinkage function at successive scales are     combined and wavelet coefficients are applied. Langarizadeh     et al. [15] used Histogram Equalization stretching and median     filters equalization for the diagnostic of masses and microcalcifications     for the detection of breast cancer. Other findings     also revealed that the quality of image is improved relatively     by using selected techniques. The second pre-processing task is     segmentation that is performed to delineate the unwanted     regions from the mammograms which contains background     removal and pectoral muscles separation [16]. An enormous     part of mammogram carries background which is nothing to do     with breast cancer detection so it is pertinent to remove it to     restrict the region of interest where the tumor normally exists     in order to obtain the better classification accuracy rate. | 
        
        
            | Texture features perform a significant task in CAD       environment. DWT is a linear transformation where       mammographic image information is divided into detailed and       approximation parts. Detail components carry information of       vertical, horizontal and diagonal sub-bands of the       mammogram. These parts can be achieved by implementing       the high pass and low pass filters on the mammogram       respectively. DCT is used to convert the signal into its       frequency parts. In image processing DCT is intended to decorrelate       the image data. DCT features have been used for the       recognition of face and some coefficients are selected to form     feature vectors [17]. To reduce the dimensionality of features, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is applied. Park et al.     [18] implemented PCA to reduce the features dimensions     which are fed to a classifier. PCA attempts to reduce the huge     data saving time and efforts for further image processing with     no loss of significant information. It is necessary that the     resultant features restrain the utmost information of input     image data. | 
        
        
            | Numerous methods have been created to classify masses into       benign and malignant categories. Lahmiri and Boukadoum       [19], proposed a supervised learning technique for       classification using SVM classifier with DCT features in order       to classify mammograms into normal and cancer images with       an accuracy of around 92.98%. Another study tested the       robustness of extracted DCT features to discriminate between       normal and suspicious of mammograms. They implemented       KNN classifier achieving the sensitivity of 98% and specificity     of 66% using the MIAS [20]. | 
        
        
            | Zakeri et al. [21] used the shape and texture features for       classification of mammograms into benign and malignant       classes. They applied SVM classifier and achieved       95.00%accuracy, 90.91% sensitivity, 97.87% specificity,       96.77% positive predictive value (PPV), 93.88% negative       predictive value (NPV), and 89.71% Matthew’s correlation       coefficient (MCC). In another research, the authors used the     Bayesian Neural Network for the classification of mammograms into normal, benign and malignant     mammograms with accuracy rate of about 86.84%. The     experiments were conducted using a total of 218 tissues     samples including 99 normal, 68 benign and 51 malignant [22]. | 
        
        
            | In this paper, a new GP based enhancement technique is       introduced for noise restoration. Then region of interests       (ROIs) are extracted by implementing background and pectoral       muscles removal techniques. Subsequently, DCT and DWT       features are extracted from the ROIs and are fused to get       unique features set. Finally these features set are given to the       SVM classifier to classify mammograms into normal and     abnormal (either benign or malignant) mammograms. | 
        
        
            
            Material and Methods
             | 
        
        
            | MIAS dataset is used for experimentation purpose in this study       which is a standard and publicly available dataset. The size of       each mammogram is 1024 × 1024 pixels and 200 micron       resolution. MIAS contains a total of 322 mammograms of both       breasts (left and right) of 161 patients. Out of which 61 are       labeled as benign, 54 as malignant and 207 are normal       mammogram [23]. The complete scheme in this study was       implemented using the Image Processing Toolbox in MATLAB       8.0. The whole methodology comprised of the four sequential     steps as shown in figure 1. | 
        
        
            
            Genetic programming (GP) based quantum noise     removal filter
             | 
        
        
            | GP is a machine learning procedure which optimizes a       population of computer programs in order to perform a       particular assigned computational job. The best optimal       solution in the numerical function form is generated through       GP evolution cycle. For the proposed filter, GP is supposed to       create a numerical optimal evolved expression for       mammogram image restoration that optimally combines and       exploits dependencies among features of the degraded/blurred       mammogram image. To develop such type of function, at first       stage, a set of feature vectors is generated by taking a small       neighbourhood around each pixel. Then, at second stage, the       estimator is trained and produced through GP procedure which       has an automatic way of selecting and combining the beneficial       feature information under a fitness criterion. These are the       same features which make the feature vector at first level.       Finally, the created function (equation 1) is used to estimate the     mammogram image pixel intensity of the degraded mammographic images. The performance of the filter function     is estimated using various degraded mammogram images. The     proposed filter effectively removes the noise and enhances the     mammograms for further processing. The newly proposed     technique is divided into three parts which are described above     and shown in Figure 2, Table 1 and Equation1 respectively. | 
        
        
            | • Features Extraction Module | 
        
        
            | • Evaluating Optimal Function using Genetic Programming | 
        
        
            | • Estimation of Restored Value | 
        
        
            
            Extracting ROIs
             | 
        
        
            | After the noise removal from all mammograms, now they are       fit for further processing so the next step is to extract ROIs. A       mammogram contains background (black portion) and pectoral       muscles which are not part of breast so it is necessary to       remove these unwanted regions in order to focus on region of       ROIs only where the probability of cancer exists. Removal of       these extra regions not only increases the performance but also     decreases the complexity of a classifier. The background is removed by implementing the technique used by Nagi et al.     [24] and pectoral muscles are separated by using the method of     Naveed et al. [13]. Now the resultant mammogram image is the     breast part (ROI), this is used to extract the features in     forthcoming section. | 
        
        
            | Error (RMSE) fitness criterion | 
        
        
            | F(x1,,x17)=x7+sin(x2+x6+x10+x19)+0.352 × (x17+cos(x12+((x13       × (x15+x13+x9+x2)) × x1)+(((x5 × x6) × sin(x8) × x9) ×       0.419)+sin(x11+x7) × 5(x7+x8)/x9+(0.502 × ((x5+x9)+0.312)) ×       (x8+(x7+(x17 × (0.102 × x5)) × (x2+(x13/sin(exp(x7+x9))       +x2)+0.243)+(log(x6)+(((x13+(x12+x6))) × x14)) +sin(x11+x5) ×     4(x6+x2)/x11+(0.73 × ((x4+x1)+0.816))(1) | 
        
        
            
            Features extraction
             | 
        
        
            | The accurate classification and diagnostic rate is mainly       depends upon robust features, particularly while dealing with       mammograms. DWT and DCT are applied on mammographic       images. Then twelve (12) DCT and eight (8) DWT features       have been experimentally selected using principal component       analysis (PCA). This set of 20 features has been fused       (combined) to form a single vector which is fed to SVM       classifier. Similarly features of all images have been extracted       which are given to the classifier in order to distinguish between     normal and abnormal mammograms in the subsequent section. | 
        
        
            
            Classification
             | 
        
        
            | The process of classifying features into their respective classes,       such as normal and abnormal or benign and malignant, is       known as classification. In binary classification problems like       normal/abnormal, SVMs perform better comparatively. SVM is       implemented in this paper using hold-out technique for       splitting the entire dataset into training and testing components,       where 70% of the mammograms are allocated to the training       set and the remaining 30% to the testing set from both classes.     The results are presented in the upcoming section. | 
        
        
            
            Experimental Results
             | 
        
        
            | The proposed GP filter effectively restores the noise from       mammograms which is beneficial in getting higher diagnostic       rate (differentiation between normal and abnormal       mammograms). The images shown in figure 3 (a-b) however,       are the original noise-free images and their respective noisy       images are shown in figure 3 (a1-b1) where quantum noise is     manually added using Matlab 8. | 
        
        
            | There does not exist such dataset that carry this kind of noise       [24-27]. It is observable that Poisson noise has been eliminated       effectively and the sharpness of the images are preserved-the       images almost look like their original (Figures 3, a2-b2). This     shows the efficacy of the proposed GP filter in noise removal. | 
        
        
            | In order to reaffirm the performance of the proposed GP filter,       some further experiments were conducted. The classification       accuracy in the presence/absence of quantum noise is       computed using DCT features by using some famous       classifiers like SVM, ANN (Artificial Neural Networks), k-NN     (k-nearest neighbourhood) and Bayesian. | 
        
        
            | The results shown in table 2 and figure 4 have demonstrated       that the proposed GP filter has successfully enhanced the     classification accuracy rate by more than 6%. | 
        
        
            | This substantial improvement proved the supremacy of GP     noise removal filter and as well as SVM classifier. It is also demonstrated that the removal of noise is very important     before classification into normal and abnormal mammograms. | 
        
        
            | After the noise removal, the background of the image is       removed which contains annotations and black portion. Once       the background is removed, then the pectoral muscles have     been removed since they are not part of breast. | 
        
        
            | Now the resultant mammogram image is the part which       contains only the breast region where the probability of cancer       exists. The proposed fused (DCTODWT) features from this       part are extracted and fed to SVM. The results are shown     below in table 3. | 
        
        
            | The above Table depicts the overall accuracy rate of SVM       classifier with 10-fold cross validation technique to distinguish       between normal and abnormal mammograms. The promising       results revealed that the newly proposed features are     discriminating. | 
        
        
            
            Conclusion
             | 
        
        
            | The produced classification results are very much promising       with 96.97% accuracy, 98.39% sensitivity and 94.59%       specificity. Such type of encouraging results are the indicative       of the state-of-the-art newly proposed GP based noise removal       technique and best performance of proposed fusion of       (DCTODWT) features in order to differentiate between normal     and abnormal mammograms with higher accuracy rate. | 
        
        
            | The proposed method may provide an adequate support to the       radiologists in differentiating between normal and abnormal       mammograms, as a second opinion. The algorithm successfully       differentiates normal and abnormal mammograms with high     accuracy, sensitivity and specificity. | 
        
        
            
            Discussion
             | 
        
        
            | In the present paper, a fully computerized classification scheme       is proposed which focuses on identifying normal and abnormal       mammograms. The main contribution of this paper is the       newly proposed GP filter which addresses the major problem       of mammograms, which is removal of noise. Then, the second     contribution is the proposed fusion of (DCTODWT) features. | 
        
        
            | These fused features proved highly fruitful results in       differentiating between normal and abnormal mammograms       with higher accuracy rate. The notable advantage of this       proposed classification scheme can also be the reduction in       false positive rate. The limitations of this work includes the     large amount of time required to train GP filter, once it is trained properly then it works efficiently and produces better     results. | 
        
        
            
            Acknowledgement
             | 
        
        
            | The authors are thankful to the Deanship of Scientific       Research, King Saud University Riyadh Saudi Arabia for     funding through the Research Group Project no. RG-1437. | 
        
        
            
            Tables at a glance
             | 
        
        
            | 
            
             | 
        
        
            
            Figures at a glance
             | 
        
        
            
            
                
                    
                          | 
                          | 
                          | 
                          | 
                     
                    
                        | Figure 1 | 
                        Figure 2 | 
                        Figure 3 | 
                        Figure 4 | 
                     
                
             
             | 
        
        
            
            References
             | 
        
        
            
            
                - Jemal A, Siegel R Xu J, Ward E. Cancer statistics 2010 CA Cancer J  Clin 2010; 60: 277-300.
 
                - Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics 2013 CA Cancer J  Clin 2013; 63: 11-30.
 
                - Kolker JL, Ismail AI, Sohn W, Ramaswami N. Trends in the incidence,  mortality, and survival rates of oral and pharyngeal cancer in a high-risk area  in Michigan, USA Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2007; 35: 489-499.
 
                - Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer, the next generation  Cell 2011; 144: 646-674.
 
                - Kaul K, DaguilhF ML. Early detection of breast cancer, is mammography  enough? Hospital Physician 2002; 38: 49-54.
 
                - Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. American Cancer Society guidelines  for the early detection of cancer 2006. CA Cancer J Clin 2006; 56: 11-25.
 
                - Zhang GP, Yan P, Zhao H. A computer aided diagnosis system in  mammography using artificial neural networks. IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Engineering and  Informatics, 2008; 02: 823-826.
 
                - Mencattini AM, Salmeri M, Lojacono R, Manuela F. Mammographic images  enhancement and denoising for breast cancer detection using dyadic wavelet  processing. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 2008; 57:  1422-1430.
 
                - Romualdo LS, Vieira MC, Schiabel H, Mascarenhas NDA, Borges LR. Mammographic  Image Denoising and Enhancement Using the Anscombe Transformation, Adaptive  Wiener Filtering, and the Modulation Transfer Function. Journal of Digital  Imaging 2013; 26: 183-197.
 
                - Kom GA, Tiedeu, et al. Computerized detection of masses on  mammograms by entropy maximization thresholding.The Abdus Salam International Centre  for Theoretical Physics, Trieste (Italy) 2010; 1-21.
 
                - Brewer NT, Jessica T. DeFrankSalz JT. Systematic review, the  long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Annals of Internal Medicine  2007; 146: 502-510.
 
                - Hui Zhi, Bing Ou, Bao-Ming Luo, Xia Feng, Yan-Ling Wen, Hai-Yun  Yang. Comparison of ultrasound elastography, mammography, and sonography in the  diagnosis of solid breast lesions. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 2007; 26:  807-815.
 
                - Naveed N, Hussain A, Jaffar MA Choi TS. Quantum and impulse noise  filtering from breast mammogram images. Computer methods and programs in  biomedicine 2012; 108: 1062-1069.
 
                - Scharcanski J. Wavelet transform approach to adaptive image  denoising and enhancement. Journal of Electronic Imaging 2004; 13: 278-285.
 
                - Langarizadeh M, Mahmud R, Ramli AR, Napis S, Beikzadeh MR, Rahman  WE. Improvement of digital mammogram images using histogram equalization,  histogram stretching and median filter. Journal of Medical Engineering and  Technology 2011; 35: 103-108.
 
                - Xu W, Xia S, Duan H, Xiao M. Segmentation of mass in mammograms  using a novel intelligent algorithm. International Journal of Pattern  Recognition and Artificial Intelligence 2006; 20: 255-270.
 
                - Dabbaghchian S, Ghaemmaghami MP,Aghagolzadeh A. "Feature  extraction using discrete cosine transform and discrimination power analysis  with a face recognition technology." Pattern recognition 2010; 43:  1431-1440.
 
                - Park MS, Na JH, Choi JY. PCA-based feature extraction using class  information. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 2005; 01: 341-345.
 
                - Lahmiri S and M. Boukadoum. Hybrid discrete wavelet transform and  Gabor filter banks Processing for features extraction from biomedical images.  Journal of Medical Engineering 2013; 1-13.
 
                - Kendall EJ and Flynn MT. Automated Breast Image Classification Using  Features from Its Discrete Cosine Transform. PloS one 2014; 9: e91015.
 
                - Zakeri FS, Behnam H,Ahmadinejad N. Classification of benign  and malignant breast masses based on shape and texture features in sonography  images. Journal of medical systems 2012; 36:1621-1627.
 
                - Martins LDO, Santos AMD,Silva AC,Paiva AC. Classification of normal,  benign and malignant tissues using co-occurrence matrix and Bayesian neural  network in mammographic images. Neural Networks 2006.
 
                - Suckling J, Parker J, Astley S,Dance D. The Mammographic Images  Analysis Society digital mammogram database. ExerptaMedica International  Congress Series 1994; 1069: 375-378.
 
                - Nagi J, Kareem SA, Nagi F, Ahmed SK. Automated breast profile  segmentation for ROI detection using digital mammograms. IEEE EMBS Conference  on Biomedical Engineering and Sciences (IECBES) 2010; 87-92.
 
                - Dos Santos Romualdo LC, da Costa Vieira MA and Schiabel, H.  Mammography images restoration by quantum noise reduction and inverse MTF  filtering. XXII IEEE Brazilian Symposium on Computer Graphics and Image  Processing (SIBGRAPI) 2009; 180-185.
 
                - Naseem MT, Sulong GB, Jaffar MA. Quantum Noise Removal and  Classification of Breast Mammogram Images. Microscopy Research and Technique  2012; 75: 1609-1612.
 
                - Wang , Li JB, Wu L, Gao H (2013). Mammography visual enhancement in  CAD-based breast cancer diagnosis. Clinical imaging 2013; 37: 273-282.
 
             
             |