Pectoral Muscles Suppression in Digital
Mammograms using Hybridization of Soft
Computing Methods
I. Laurence Aroquiaraj and K. Thangavel


Abstract— Breast region segmentation is an essential prerequisite
in computerized analysis of mammograms. It aims at separating the
breast tissue from the background of the mammogram and it includes
two independent segmentations. The first segments the background
region which usually contains annotations, labels and frames from
the whole breast region, while the second removes the pectoral
muscle portion (present in Medio Lateral Oblique (MLO) views)
from the rest of the breast tissue. In this paper we propose
hybridization of Connected Component Labeling (CCL), Fuzzy, and
Straight line methods. Our proposed methods worked good for
separating pectoral region. After removal pectoral muscle from the
mammogram, further processing is confined to the breast region
alone. To demonstrate the validity of our segmentation algorithm, it
is extensively tested using over 322 mammographic images from the
Mammographic Image Analysis Society (MIAS) database. The
segmentation results were evaluated using a Mean Absolute Error
(MAE), Hausdroff Distance (HD), Probabilistic Rand Index (PRI),
Local Consistency Error (LCE) and Tanimoto Coefficient (TC). The
hybridization of fuzzy with straight line method is given more than
96% of the curve segmentations to be adequate or better. In addition
a comparison with similar approaches from the state of the art has
been given, obtaining slightly improved results.
Experimental
results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

Keywords— X-ray Mammography, CCL, Fuzzy, Straight line.
I. INTRODUCTION

B

reast cancer is the most common of all cancers and is the
leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide,
accounting for more than 1.6% of deaths and case fatality
rates are highest in low-resource countries. A recent study of
breast cancer risk in India revealed that 1 in 28 women
develop breast cancer during her lifetime. This is higher in
urban areas being 1 in 22 in a lifetime compared to rural areas
where this risk is relatively much lower being 1 in 60 women
developing breast cancer in their lifetime. In India the average
age of the high risk group in India is 43-46 years unlike in the
west where women aged 53-57 years are more prone to breast
cancer. As there is no effective method for its prevention, the
diagnosis of breast cancer in its early stage of development

has become very crucial for the prevention of cancer.
Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) systems play an important
role in earlier diagnosis of breast cancer [1].
Every effort directed to improve early detection is
needed. Most of them require an initial processing step that
splits the image into interesting areas, such as the breast
region, background and patient markings (artifacts).
Mammograms capture the low energy X-rays which
passes through a compressed breast. It is used to detect
tumors and cysts in an advanced stage of cancer and to help
distinguish benign (noncancerous) and malignant (cancerous)
cases.
Pectoral muscles are the regions in mammograms that
contain brightest pixels. These regions must be removed
before detecting the tumor cells so that mass detection can be
done efficiently. Pectoral muscles lie on the left or right top
corner depending on the view of the image. We must detect
the position of the pectoral muscles (left top corner or right
top corner), before removing it. Remove the pectoral muscle
from the mammogram images, was a more complicated task
because of different dimensions, shapes and pixel intensities
from the muscles in the images. The Hough transform was
used, a commonly used technique to detect geometrical shapes
in images. In our case, we wanted to detect the hybridization
of CCL, Fuzzy and Straight Line methods that separates the
muscle from the breast and apply a mask to keep the image
without it. It was also necessary to apply some pre-processing
procedures to the images like smoothing, finding the
orientation, extract a region of interest that contains the
pectoral muscle.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2
presents t h e r e s e a r c h b a c k g r o u n d a n d c c l , s t r a i g h t
l i n e a n d f u z z y me t h o d s . Section 3 presents the
mammogram image data acquisition. Section 4 describes the
proposed hybridization of the three methods. The
experimental results are discussed in section 5 and conclusion
is presented in section 6.
II. RESEARCH BACKGROUND

I. Laurence Aroquiaraj was IEEE Member, Assistant Professor, Department of
Computer Science, Periyar University, Salem – 636 011, Tamil Nadu, India
(corresponding author to provide phone: +918807058505; e-mail:
laurence.raj@gmail.com).
Prof. Dr. K. Thangavel, was IEEE Member, Professor and Head, Department
of Computer Science, Periyar University, Salem – 636 011, Tamil Nadu, India
(e-mail: drktvelu@yahoo.com).

There have been various approaches to the task
of segmenting the pectoral muscle.
A histogram-based
thresholding technique is used by K.Thangavel et. al. [2] to
separate the pectoral muscle region. For selecting the
threshold value the global optimum is considered. The

intensity values smaller than global optimum threshold are
changed to zero, and the gray values greater than the threshold
are changed to one. To better preserve the pectoral muscle
region erosion and dilation operations are applied. To segment
the pectoral muscle region the gray level mammogram image
is converted to binary image. The white pixels in the lower
left corner of the mammogram image indicate the pectoral
muscle region. The segmentation outputs of these methods
were very efficient and excellent.
K.Thangavel et. al. proposed in [2] applies the metaheuristic methods such as Ant Colony Optimization (ACO)
and Genetic Algorithm (GA) for identification of suspicious
region in mammograms.
M. Wirth et al. developed an algorithm [3] that uses
morphological preprocessing and fuzzy rule-based algorithm
for breast region extraction.
Kostas Marias et al. [4] used the boundary extraction
technique based on a combination of the Hough
transform followed
by
image
gradient operators and
morphology in order to make coherent the breast region part
of the image.
Gradient based method is proposed by Méndez et al. [5]
to find the breast contour. They used a two level thresholding
technique to isolate the breast region of the mammogram. The
smoothed mammogram is divided into three regions and then
a tracking algorithm is applied to the mammogram to detect
the border.
T.S.Subashini et al. [6] proposed a technique for
pectoral muscle removal and detecting masses in
mammograms using connected component labeling (CCL).
From the detected corner pixel the intensity discontinuity is
detected on each and every column of the same row.
Coordinates of the pixel in which the intensity change is
encountered is considered as width of the pectoral region.
Arun Kumar et al. [7] proposed wavelet decomposition
with edge detection using canny filter.They used inside the
pectoral muscle region which removed by approximating
muscle boundary with a straight-line that connects upper right
corner and lower left corner of muscle region in the case of
the right breast image.
Lou et al. [8] proposed a method based on the
assumption that the trace of intensity values from the breast
region to the air-background is a monotonic decreasing
function. One of the inherent limitations of these methods is
the fact that very few of them preserve the skin or nipple.
Zhili Chen et al. [9] proposed a fully automated breast
region segmentation method based on histogram thresholding,
edge detection in scale space, contour growing and
polynomial fitting. Subsequently, pectoral muscle removal
using region growing is presented.
Roshan Dharshana Yapa et al. presented a new
algorithm [10] for estimating skin-line and breast
segmentation using fast marching algorithm. They introduced
some modifications to the traditional fast marching method,
specifically to improve the accuracy of skin-line estimation
and breast tissue segmentation.

The most promising method of extracting the breast
contour focuses on modeling the non-breast region of a
mammogram using a polynomial method, as described by
Chandrasekhar and Attikiouzel [11, 12].
Kwork et al. [13] developed a method for automatic
pectoral muscle segmentation on mammograms by straightline
estimation and cliff detection. A straight line estimates the
muscle edge and cliff detection refines the detected edge by
surface smoothing and edge detection in a restricted
neighborhood.
H. Mirzaalian et al. developed [14] a new method for
the identification of the pectoral muscle in MLO
mammograms. The developed method is based on nonlinear
diffusion algorithm. They compared their results by those
recognized by two expert radiologists. To evaluate the
accuracy of proposed method, HDM (Hausdorff Distance
Measure) and MAEDM (Mean of Absolute Error Distance
Measure) were used.
R.J. Ferrari proposed [15] a new method for the
identification of the pectoral muscle in MLO mammograms
based upon a multi resolution technique using Gabor
wavelets. This new method overcomes the limitation of the
straight-line representation considered in their initial
investigation. The results of the Gabor-filter-based method
indicated low Hausdorff distances with respect to the handdrawn pectoral muscle edges.
Mario Mustra et al. [16] uses wavelet decomposition,
image blurring and edge detection using the Sobel filter for
breast border detection and pectoral muscle segmentation.
N.Nicolau et al. [17] proposed the use of Independent
Component Analysis (ICA) for identification and sub sequent
removal of the pectoral muscle.
III. PROPOSED WORK
A. Connected Components Labeling (CCL)
Connected-component
labeling
(alternatively
connected-component
analysis, blob extraction, region
labeling, blob discovery, or region extraction) is an
algorithmic application of graph theory, where subsets of
connected components are uniquely labeled based on a given
heuristic. Connected-component labeling is not to be
confused with segmentation.
Connected-component labeling is used in computer
vision to detect connected regions in binary digital images,
although color images and data with higher- dimensionality
can also be processed. When integrated into an image
recognition system or human-computer interaction interface,
connected component labeling can operate on a variety of
information. Blob extraction is generally performed on the
resulting binary image from a thresholding step. Blobs may
be counted, filtered, and tracked. [6]

Algorithm: Connected Components Labeling
Step 1: Iterate through each element of the data by
column, then by row (Raster Scanning)
Step 2: If the element is not the background
Step 2.1: Get the neighboring elements of the
current element
Step 2.2: If there are no neighbors, uniquely
label the current element and continue
Step 2.3: Otherwise, find the neighbor with the
smallest label and assign it to the
current element
Step 2.4: Store the equivalence between
neighboring labels
Step 3: Iterate through each element of the data by
column, then by row
Step 4: If the element is not the background
Step 5: Relabel the element with the lowest
equivalent label

B. Fuzzy Logic Method
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic; it deals
with reasoning that is fixed or approximate rather than fixed
and exact. In contrast with "crisp logic", where binary sets
have two-valued logic: true or false, fuzzy logic variables
may have a truth value that ranges in degree between 0 and
1. Fuzzy logic has been extended to handle the concept of
partial truth, where the truth value may range between
completely true and completely false. Furthermore, when
linguistic variables are used, these degrees may be
managed by specific functions [18].
Fuzzy set theory defines fuzzy operators on fuzzy sets.
The problem in applying this is that the appropriate fuzzy
operator may not be known. For this reason, fuzzy logic
usually uses IF-THEN rules, or constructs that are equivalent,
such as fuzzy associative matrices.
Rules are usually expressed in the form: IF variable IS
property THEN action
Algorithm: Fuzzy Logic Method
Step 1: Iterate through each element of the data
by column, then by row
(Raster Scanning)
Step 2: Fuzzifying the given image based on
expert knowledge using fuzzy logic
Step 3: Modifying the membership values of
fuzzified image by using fuzzy
techniques
such as fuzzy clustering, fuzzy rule based
approach etc.
Step 4: Defuzzifying the modified membership
values of the image
Step 5: Getting the resultant image

C. Straight line method
In Straight line method, the algorithm detects the
straight-line that represents the boundary of pectoral muscle
in mammogram images. After the region is selected using
the histogram based method, the x- axis and y- axis values
will be found for the pectoral region. Then depending up on
the (x, y) and (x’, y’) the straight line will be drawn in the
index value of the region. The straight line will be drawn
using around half as Cuba’s coding process [13].
Algorithm: Straight Line Method
Step 1: Getting the 3 * 3 (Raster Scanning)
Step 2: Each center of that three values will be
taken as 1’s
Step 3: Next diagonal for the first two will be
taken for 3*3 Matrices
Step 4: The process will be continuing depending
upon the (x, y) and (x’, y’) the straight line
will be drawn in the index value of the
region.
Step 5: Getting the resultant image
D. Statistical Measurement
1. Probabilistic Rand Index
The section introduces a measure that combines the
desirable statistical properties of the Rand index with the
ability to accommodate refinements appropriately. Since the
latter property is relevant primarily when quantifying
consistency of image segmentation results, we will focus on
that application while describing the measure.
Consider a set of manually segmented (ground truth)
images {S1 , S 2 ,....S k } corresponding to an image X =

{x1 , x2 ,...., xi ,...., x N } where a subscript indexes one of N
pixels. Let S be the segmentation that is to be compared with
the manually labeled set. Our goal is to compare a candidate
segmentation S to this set and obtain a suitable measure of
consistency d ( S , S1.....K ) . Given the manually labeled
images, we can compute the empirical probability of the label
relationship of a pixel pair xi and x j simply as:
^

^

^

P(l i  l
^

^

j

) 

^

P(l i  l

j

1 K
(k )
 l (j k ) )
 I (li
K k 1
1 K
(k )
 l (j k ) )
 I (li
K k 1

) 
^

^

 1  P(l i

^

 l

j

)

Consider the probabilistic Rand (PR) index:
PR( S , S
)
{1,....,K }
^ ^
^
^ ^
^
1
 [I(l  l ) P( l i  l j ) I(l  l ) P( l i  l j )
i
j
i
j
N
( )i j
2

(1)

This measure takes values in [0, 1] – 0 when S and
{S 1 , S 2 . . . S K } have no similarities (i.e. when S consists of
a single cluster and each segmentation in {S 1 , S 2 , . . . , S K }
consists only of clusters containing single points, or vice
versa) to 1 when all segmentations are identical.
2. Local Consistency Error
Let S 1 , S 2 are two segmentations, R1,i is the set to a
region of pixels corresponding in the S 1 segmentation and
containing the pixel I, |R| is the set cardinality and | is the set
difference. A refinement tolerant measure error was defined at
each pixel i:
 i (S , S 2 ) 

| R1,i \ R2,i |
|R |

1,i
(2)
This non-symmetric local error measure encodes a
measure of refinement in one direction only. Local
Consistency Error (LCE) allows refinement in both directions.
1
(3)
LCE(S , S ) 
min{ε (S , S ), ε (S , S )}

1 2


n i

i 1 2

i 2 1

3. Tanimoto Coefficient
The use of Tanimoto coefficient has become popular as
a coefficient of similarity in images.
The Tanimoto Coefficient is an extended Jaccard
Coefficient. The Jaccard similarity coefficient is a static used
for comparing the similarity and diversity of sample sets. The
Jaccard coefficient is defined as the size of the intersection
divided by the size of the union of the sample sets:
J ( A, B) 

| A B |
| A B |

(4)
The Jaccard distance, which measures dissimilarity
between sample sets, is obtained by dividing the difference of
the sizes of the union abd the intersection of two sets by the
size of the union , or simpler, by subtracting the Jaccard
coefficient from 1 as done in the following equation .
J ( A, B)  1  J ( A, B) 

| A B |  | A B |
| A B |

(5)
For two objects, A and B, each with n binary attributes,
the Jaccard coefficient is a useful measure of the overlap that
A and B share with their attributes. Each attribute of A and B
can either be 0 or1. The total number of each combination of
attributes for both A and B are specified as follows:
The Jaccard similarity coefficient J is given by the
following equation:
J

M 11
M 01  M 10  M 11

The Jaccard distance, J’, is given by the following
equation:
J'

M 01  M 10
M 01  M 10  M 11

Where,

M00 – Represents the total number of attributes where
both A and B have value of 0.
M01 – Represents the total number of attributes where
the attribute of A is 0 and the attribute of B is1
M10 - Represents the total number of attributes where
the attribute of A is 0 and the attribute of B is1
M11 - Represents the total number of attributes where
both A and B have value of 1.
M00+M01+M10+M11 – Each attribute has fall into
these four categories.
Cosine similarity is a measure of similarity between two
vectors of n dimensions by finding the angle between them,
often used to compare documents in text mining. Given two
vectors of attributes, A and B, the cosine similarity,  , is
represented using a dot product and magnitude as in the
following equation:
  arc(cos)

A, B
|| A |||| B ||

Since the angle,  , is in the range of [0,  ], the
resulting similarity will yield the value of  meaning exactly
the opposite,  / 2 meaning independent, 0 meaning exactly
the same and in-between values indicating intermediate
similarities or dissimilarities.
This cosine similarity metric may be extended such that
it yields the Jaccard coefficient in the case of binary attributes
and can be represented as the Tanimoto coefficient
represented in the below equation.
T ( A, B) 

A, B
|| A || 2  || B || 2  A, B

(6)
In some case, each attribute is binary such that each bit
represents the absence of presence of a characteristic, thus, it
is better to determine the similarity via the overlap, or
intersection, of the sets.
Simply put, the Tanimoto Coefficient uses the ratio of
the intersecting set to the union set as the measure of
similarity. Represented as a mathematical equation:
Ta 

Nc
N a  Nb  Nc

(7)
In this equation, N represents the number of attributes
in each object (a, b). C in this case is the intersection set.

4. Mean absolute error
In statistics, the mean absolute error (MAE) is a
quantity used to measure how close forecasts or predictions
are to the eventual outcomes. The mean absolute error is
given by
MAE 

1 n
1 n
 f y 
 e
i
i
n i 1
ni 1 i

(8)

As the name suggests, the mean absolute error is an
average of the absolute errors ei = fi - yi where fi
is the

prediction and yi the true value. Note that alternative
formulations may include relative frequencies as weight
factors.
The mean absolute error is a common measure of
forecast error in time series analysis, where the terms "mean
absolute deviation" is sometimes used in confusion with the
more standard definition of mean absolute deviation. The
same confusion exists more generally.

CCL with Fuzzy, CCL with Straight line, and Straight line
with Fuzzy. These six methods were compared with each
other by error measure, index measure and distance measure.

5. Hausdorff distance measures
Hausdorff distance, measures how far two subsets
of a metric space are from each other. It turns the set of
non-empty compact subsets of a metric space into a metric
space in its own right. Informally, two sets are close in the
Hausdorff distance if every point of either set is close to
some point of the other set. The Hausdorff distance is the
longest distance you can be forced to travel by an adversary
who chooses a point in one of the two sets, from where you
then must travel to the other set. In other words, it is the
farthest point of a set that you can be to the closest point of a
different set.
Let X and Y be two non-empty subsets of a
metric space (M, d). We define their
Hausdorff distance d H(X, Y) by
(9)

Where sup represents the supremum and inf the
infimum.
H



Where

X 









 z  M ; d ( z, x)   
x X

That is, the set of all points within ε of the set X
(sometimes called a generalized ball of radius ε around X).
We can create a metric by defining the Hausdorff
distance to be:

d (X, Y)  maxd ( X , Y ), D(Y , X )
H
IV.

Figure 1 shows the breast region of left and right
mammograms after the removal of pectoral muscle region
using three different methods like ccl with fuzzy, ccl with
straight line and fuzzy with straight line.
It is observed from the Table 1 that proposed methods
produces minimized probabilistic rand index values. Figure 2
shows a comparison of all six methods average values of ten
mammogram images obtained by using the proposed methods
TABLE I
PROBABILISTIC RAND INDEX (PRI) VALUES FOR CCL, FUZZY,
STRAIGHT LINE AND PROPOSED METHOD





d (X, Y)  max  sup inf d ( x, y ), sup inf d ( x, y )
H
y

Y
x

X
 x  X

y Y

Equivalently d (X, Y)  inf   0; X  Y andY  X

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 1 (a) Pectoral muscle identification results for MIAS
image mdb006
(b) CCL with Fuzzy
(c) CCL with Straight Line
(d) Fuzzy with Straight Line

(10)

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Obtaining real mammogram images (322 images) for
carrying out research is highly difficult due to privacy issues,
legal issues and technical hurdles. Hence the Mammography
Image
Analysis
Society
(MIAS)
database
(ftp://peipa.essex.ac.uk) is used in this paper to study the
efficiency of the proposed pectoral muscle removal image
segmentation and evaluated using mammography images.
The pectoral muscle region removal from the mammogram is
had by our three proposed method. Six methods were
Connected Component Labeling (CCL), Fuzzy, Straight line,

MIAS
Images
Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

CCL

FUZZY

St. Line

0.72017
0.597211
0.730559
0.4382
0.56572
0.757102
0.68304
0.690741
0.549994
0.583248

0.719915
0.5977
0.730677
0.439102
0.566003
0.757341
0.683109
0.690677
0.550095
0.583436

0.718702
0.596224
0.729346
0.419749
0.56086
0.755594
0.680662
0.690618
0.548686
0.578468

MIAS
Images

CCL with
FUZZY

CCL
with
St. Line

Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

0.719722
0.563394
0.664296
0.44328
0.547105
0.638295
0.610763
0.689599
0.57717
0.593833

0.720041
0.563353
0.665386
0.443519
0.547259
0.638418
0.61171
0.689809
0.576323
0.59333

FUZZY
with
St. Line
0.71951
0.563298
0.665227
0.435582
0.545755
0.638398
0.611678
0.689286
0.593367
0.593367

It is observed from the Table 3 that proposed methods
produces maximized Tanimoto Coefficient values. Figure 4
shows a comparison of all six methods average values of ten
mammogram images obtained by using the proposed methods.
TABLE III
TANIMOTO COEFFICIENT (TC) VALUES FOR CCL, FUZZY, STRAIGHT
LINE AND PROPOSED METHOD

Figure 2. Performance Analysis for PRI values of six methods

It is observed from the Table 2 that proposed methods
produces minimized local consistency error values. Figure 3
shows a comparison of all six methods average values of ten
mammogram images obtained by using the proposed methods.
TABLE II
LOCAL CONSISTENCY ERROR (LCE) VALUES FOR CCL, FUZZY, STRAIGHT
LINE AND PROPOSED METHOD
MIAS
Images
Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

CCL

FUZZY

St. Line

0.597624
0.551666
0.617434
0.238447
0.448288
0.63335
0.517977
0.579295
0.442121
0.477111

0.59343
0.548118
0.616034
0.236125
0.445551
0.631521
0.511736
0.575678
0.439119
0.474178

0.602423
0.555012
0.620304
0.24201
0.451627
0.63703
0.52405
0.580302
0.442851
0.484285

MIAS
Images

CCL with
FUZZY

CCL
with
St. Line

Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

0.594207
0.55637
0.660039
0.259328
0.459397
0.677242
0.578005
0.576046
0.448696
0.482307

0.595639
0.558248
0.660923
0.260263
0.460429
0.678941
0.579829
0.577471
0.450034
0.483871

MIAS
Images
Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

CCL

FUZZY

St. Line

0.2
0.202522
0.2
0.292834
0.205158
0.2
0.209251
0.2
0.201175
0.210919

0.2
0.204603
0.2
0.293354
0.206293
0.2
0.210249
0.2
0.201175
0.210919

0.2
0.202522
0.2
0.288017
0.20532
0.208754
0.208754
0.2
0.201175
0.210584

MIAS
Images

CCL with
FUZZY

CCL
with
St. Line

Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

0.2
0.207041
0.2
0.293615
0.206619
0.2
0.210417
0.2
0.201175
0.210919

0.2
0.204603
0.2
0.293354
0.206293
0.2
0.210249
0.2
0.201175
0.210919

FUZZY
with
St. Line
0.2
0.206713
0.2
0.293354
0.206293
0.2
0.210249
0.2
0.201175
0.210919

FUZZY
with
St. Line
0.595499
0.55791
0.660321
0.260085
0.460218
0.67808
0.579347
0.577408
0.483309
0.483309

Figure 4. Performance Analysis for TC values of six methods

It is observed from the Table 4 that proposed methods
produces minimized mean absolute error values. Figure 5
shows a comparison of all six methods average values of ten
mammogram images obtained by using the proposed methods.

Figure 3. Performance Analysis for LCE values of six methods

TABLE IV
MEAN ABSOLUTE ERROR (MAE) VALUES FOR CCL, FUZZY, STRAIGHT
LINE AND PROPOSED METHOD
MIAS
Images
Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

CCL

FUZZY

St. Line

14.95815
7.653979
11.7442
4.368523
18.04244
3.084916
2.677366
17.641
20.03298
14.7345

15.13723
8.021899
12.04196
4.577971
18.19584
3.418113
2.922425
17.88212
20.37581
15.04974

15.3787
7.1291
11.8065
5.4374
19.6207
3.6963
2.8311
17.9938
20.7162
15.9393

MIAS
Images

CCL with
FUZZY

CCL
with
St. Line

Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

16.77865
41.87288
40.53586
43.99408
31.58742
62.13871
27.70708
18.31366
55.28955
43.81568

53.13372
7.482403
8.710763
3.567551
22.74979
22.39978
9.981722
41.58066
27.3498
20.04527

MIAS
Images
Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

CCL with
FUZZY
3259.30
2071.80
2583.90
2565.20
6716.90
1679.00
1883.20
1591.90
1371.60
1611.80

CCL
with
St. Line

FUZZY
with
St. Line

1912.20
2004.00
2975.40
1400.70
1892.70
2705.70
2232.60
1764.80
2252.40
2278.70

3144.00
2133.60
3176.60
1487.40
2342.70
3147.00
2503.40
2895.60
2727.10
2577.30

FUZZY
with
St. Line
0.835207
0.917385
0.874889
0.766388
0.495436
0.481487
0.859869
0.887138
0.592274
0.965522

Figure 6. Performance Analysis for HD values of six methods

III. CONCLUSION

Figure 5. Performance Analysis for MAE values of six methods

It is observed from the Table 5 that proposed methods
produces minimized Hausdroff distance values. Figure 6
shows a comparison of all six methods average values of ten
mammogram images obtained by using the proposed methods.
TABLE V
HAUSDROFF DISTANCE (HD) VALUES FOR CCL, FUZZY, STRAIGHT LINE AND

In this paper, an approach to segmentation of the breast
region with pectoral muscle removal in mammograms has
been proposed based on a hybridization of ccl, fuzzy and
straight line methods which are based on the pectoral muscles
removal. Initial segmentation results on more than 322
mammograms have been qualitatively evaluated and have
shown that our method can robustly obtain an acceptable
segmentation in 98.4% and 95.5% for breast-boundary and
pectoral muscle separation in mammograms with different
density types and preserve the tissue close to the breast skin
line effectively.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The First author would like to thank the University Grant
Commission, India (F. No. 41-1361/2012(SR)) for his
research.
REFERENCES

PROPOSED METHOD

MIAS
Images
Mdb006
Mdb015
Mdb020
Mdb040
Mdb042
Mdb050
Mdb070
Mdb077
Mdb099
Mdb100

[1].
CCL
2807.60
1997.40
2877.60
1423.30
1973.70
3043.90
2442.10
2526.60
2240.50
2220.60

FUZZY
2809.00
1996.00
2878.00
1424.00
1974.00
3044.00
2443.00
2528.00
2243.00
2224.00

St. Line
2780.80
2010.30
2859.50
1420.80
1933.90
3016.30
2429.30
2530.30
2240.60
2180.10

[2].

[3].

[4].

S. Don, Eumin Choi, and Dugki Min, Breast Mass, “Segmentation in
Digital Mammography Using Graph Cuts” ICHIT, CCIS 206, pp. 88–
96, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011.
K.Thangavel, and M. Karnan, “Computer Aided Diagnosis in Digital
Mammograms: Detection of Microcalcifications by Meta
HeuristicAlgorithms “, GVIP Journal, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2005.
M. Wirth, D. Nikitenko, and J. Lyon, “Segmentation of the Breast
Region in Mammograms using a Rule-Based Fuzzy Reasoning
Algorithm”, GVIP Special Issue on Mammograms, 2007.
Kostas Marias, Christian Behrenbruch, Santilal Parbhoo, Alexander
Seifalian, and Michael Brady, “A Registration Framework for the
Comparison of Mammogram Sequences” , IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 24, NO. 6, JUNE 2005.

[5].

[6].

[7].

[8].

[9].

[10].

[11].

[12].

[13].

[14].

[15].

[16].

[17].

[18].

Méndez A.J, Tahoces P.G, Lado M.J, Souto M, Correa J.L, and
VidalJ.J, “Automatic Detection of Breast Border and Nipple in
DigitalMammograms”, Computer Methods and Programs in
Biomedicine, 49,pp.253-262, 1996.
T.S.Subashini, V.Ramalingam, S.Palanivel, “Pectoral muscle removal
and Detection of masses in Digital Mammogram using CCL”,
International Journal of computer Applications (0975-8887)
Vol. 1 , No.6, 2010.
Arun Kumar M.N and Dr. H.S Sheshadri, “Breast Contour Extraction
And Pectoral Muscle Segmentation In Digital Mammograms”
published in International Journal IJCSIS, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp 53-59,
February 2011.
Lou S.L, Lin H.D, Lin K.P, and Hoogstrate, “Automatic Breast Region
Extraction
from Digital
Mammograms
for
PACS
and
Telemammography Applications”, Computerized Medical Imaging and
Graphics, 24, pp.205-220, 2000.
Zhili Chen, Reyer Zwiggelaar (Aberystwyth University), “Segmentation
of the Breast Region with Pectoral Muscle Removal in Mammograms”,
Proceedings of Medical Image Understanding and Analysis (Warwick,
July 2010),ISBN: 978-0-9566150-0-8,pp. 71-76, 2010.
Roshan Dharshana Yapa, and Koichi Harada, “Breast Skin-Line
Estimation and Breast Segmentation in Mammograms using FastMarching Method”, International Journal of Biological and Medical
Sciences 3:1 2008.
Chandrasekhar R, and Attikiouzel Y, “Automatic Breast Border
Segmentation by Background Modeling and Subtraction”, in 5th
InternationalWorkshop
on Digital
Mammography, Medical
Physics Publishing, Toronto, Canada, pp.560-565, 2000.
Chandrasekhar Rand Attikiouzel Y,“Gross Segmentation of
Mammograms using a Polynomial Model”, in International Conference
of theIEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, Amsterdam,
Netherlands,3, pp.1056-1058, 1996.
S.M. Kwok, R. Chandrashekar, and Y. Attikkiouzel, “Automatic
Pectoral Muscle Segmentation on Mammograms by Straight Line
Estimation and Cliff Detection”, 7th Australian and New Zealand
Intelligent Information Systems Conference 18-21 November 2001,
Perth, Western Australia.
H. Mirzaalian, M.R. Ahmedzadeh, and S. Sadri, “ Pectoral Muscle
Segmentation on Digital Mammograms by Nonlinear Diffusion
Filtering”, 1-4244-1190-4/07/ ©2007 IEEE, pp. 581-584.
R. J. Ferrari, R. M. Rangayyan,, J. E. L. Desautels, R. A. Borges, and
A.F. Frère, “ Automatic Identification of Pectoral Muscle in
Mammograms”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING,
Vol. 23, NO. 2, February 2004
Mario Mustra, Jelena Bozek, and Mislav Grgic, “Breast Border
Extraction And Pectoral Muscle Detection Using Wavelet
Decomposition”,978-1-4244-3861-7/09/ ©2009 IEEE, pp. 1428-1435
N. Nicolaou, S. Petroudi, J. Georgiou, M. Polycarpou, and M. Brady,
“Digital Mammography: Towards Pectoral Muscle Removal via
Independent Component Anlysis”, Department of Electrical and
Computer
Engineering,
University
of
Cyprus, 1678
Nicosia, CyprusFax. And Wolfson Medical Vision Laboratory, Oxford
University, Oxford OX2 7DD, UK
Aborisade, D.O, “Fuzzy Logic Based Digital Image Edge Detection”,
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, Vol. 29,
pp. 75-82 April 2011.

MR. I. LAURENCE AROQUIARAJ received the M.Sc.,Computer
Science from Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, India in 2002, M. Phil.,
degree from Manonmaniam University, Tamilnadu, India in 2003, Master of
Technology from CSE, Kalinga University, India in 2005 and Master of
Computer Applications Degree from Periyar University, Salem, Tamilnadu,
India in 2009.
He is working as Assistant Professor in Computer Science, Periyar University,
Salem, Tamilnadu, India. He is pursuing his Ph.D in medical Image
Processing. His research interest includes image processing, biometrics and
pattern recognition.
This author became a Member of IEEE in 2012 and also Member of IAENG
in 2011.
Dr. THANGAVEL KUTTIANNAN received the Master of Science from
Department of Mathematics, Bharathidasan University in 1986 and Master of
Computer Applications Degree from Madurai Kamaraj University, India in
2001. He obtained his Ph. D. Degree from the Department of Mathematics,
Gandhigram Rural University in 1999.
He worked as Reader in the Department of Mathematics, Gandhigram Rural
University, upto 2006. Currently he is working as Professor and Head,
Department of Computer Science, Periyar University, Salem, Tamilnadu,
India. His areas of interest include medical image processing, artificial
intelligence, neural network, fuzzy logic, data mining, pattern recognition and
mobile computing.
This author became a Member of IEEE in 2012. He was received Young
Scientist award, Tamilnadu Government, India in 2010.

