4.2 Article

An image analysis approach for automatic malignancy determination of prostate pathological images

Journal

CYTOMETRY PART B-CLINICAL CYTOMETRY
Volume 72B, Issue 4, Pages 227-240

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/cyto.b.20162

Keywords

malignancy of prostate pathological samples; texture analysis; linear classifier

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Determining malignancy of prostate pathological samples is important for treatment planning of prostate cancer. Traditionally, this is performed by expert pathologists who evaluate the structure of prostate glands in the biopsy samples. However, this is a subjective task due to inter- and intra-observer differences among pathologists. Also, it is time-consuming and difficult to some extent. Therefore, automatic determination of malignancy of prostate pathological samples is of interest. Methods: A texture-based technique is first used to segment the prostate glands in the image. Features related to size and shape of these glands are then extracted and combined to generate an index, which is proportional to malignancy of cancer. A linear classifier is employed to classify the specimens into benign (low potential for malignancy) and malignant. Results: The leave-one-out technique is employed to evaluate the method using two datasets. The first has 91 images with similar magnifications and illuminations while the second has 199 images with different magnifications and illuminations. In the experiments, accuracies of about 98 and 95% have been achieved for these two datasets, respectively. Conclusions: An image analysis approach is employed to evaluate prostate pathological images. Experimental results show that the proposed method can successfully classify the prostate biopsy samples into benign and malignant. They also show that the proposed method is robust to variations in magnification and illumination. (c) 2007 Clinical Cytometry Society.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available