A FRACTAL ANALYSIS APPROACH TO IDENTIFICATION OF TUMOR IN BRAIN MR IMAGES

Khan M. Iftekharuddin, Wei Jia*, and Ronald Marsh*

ISIP lab, ECE Department, The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152. *Dept. of Computer Science, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND
58105.

This research is partly supported by ND EPSCoR through a biomedical SEED grant.

Introduction
The purpose of this study is to apply fractal analysis to identify tumor in brain MR images. Three models are developed to detect tumor in MR brain images using fractal dimension analysis. A multimedia web-based application is developed for tumor detection application

Introduction
Three models are:
Piecewise-threshold-box-counting (PTBC), Piecewise modified box-counting (PMBC), Piecewise triangular prism surface area (PTPSA).

Fractal
Seminal works from Hilbert, Minkowski, Cantor, Mandelbrot, (Hausdorff, Lyapunov, Ken Wilson, ) VP A. Gore is fascinated by fractals Time Mag., 8/21/00, p. 41

What is Fractal Geometry?

Fractal is an irregular geometric object with an infinite nesting of structure at all scales. Fractal objects can be found everywhere in the nature, such as trees, ferns, clouds, snow flakes, mountains, bacteria, and coastlines.

Application of Fractal Analysis

Identification of corn roots stressed by nitrogen fertilizer, Determination of steers body temperature fluctuations in hot and cool chambers, Estimation of surface roughness of textural images.

Application of Fractal Analysis

Medical images:
Detection of micro-calcifications in mammograms, Prediction of osseous changes in ankle fractures, Diagnosis of small peripheral lung tumors, Identification of breast tumors in digitized mammograms.

Properties of Fractal Object

Three most important properties of fractals are:
self-similarity, chaos, non-integer fractal dimension (FD).

Example Fractal Geometry Self Similarity

Example Fractal Geometry Chaos

Fractal Dimension
The equation for fractal dimension (FD) is as follows:
ln (number of self-similar pieces, N) ln (magnification factor, 1/r)

FD = lim r->00+

Non-integer Fractal Dimension

The Fractal Dimension for Koch Curve is:

For N = 4, the magnification (height/width ) is reduces by 1/3 ( = r)

FD = ln 4 / ln 3 = 1.2618

Non-integer Fractal Dimension

The Fractal Dimension for Sierpinski triangle is:

Each triangle is divided into 3 (= N) equal triangles for each iteration and the height/width are reduced by ( = r). FD = ln 3 / ln 2 = 1.5849

Methods to Estimate Fractal Dimension

There are a wide variety of computer algorithms for estimating the fractal dimension of a structure such as,
Box-counting algorithm (BC). Modified Box-counting algorithm (MBC). Triangular Prism Surface Area (TPSA).

BC Method to Estimate Fractal Dimension

Box-counting algorithm.
1. Box size r = 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 pixels. 2. Number of boxes occupied (N). 3. A linear regression of the ln N versus ln 1/r to find the slope (FD):

BC Method to Estimate Fractal Dimension

Box size(pixels) No. of Occupied boxes

r = 40,

N = 16

r = 30, . r = 20,

N = 24 . N = 31

BC Method to Estimate Fractal Dimension

BC Method to Estimate Fractal Dimension

Test Clouds images

Box-Counting Algorithm Analyzing Clouds Images

The estimation the fractal dimensions of clouds of 2.3, 2.5, and 2.8 using box-counting algorithm for whole image. BC Whole D = 2.3 2.034 D = 2.5 2.034 D = 2.8 2.034

MBC Method to Estimate Fractal Dimension

Modified box-counting (MBC) method for measurement surface fractal dimension.
Image Intensity

max ( ri) - min (ri) N = floor { r }+1

MBC Algorithm Analyzing Clouds Images

The estimation the fractal dimensions of clouds of 2.3, 2.5, and 2.8 using modified box-counting algorithm for whole image. M BC W hole D = 2.3 2.17 D = 2.5 2.27 D = 2.8 2.40

TPSA Method to Estimate Fractal Dimension

Triangular Prism Surface Area (TPSA). The connections of the pixels grayscale values p1, p2, p3, p4 and pc produces four triangles.

N = Sum of the top areas.

TPSA Algorithm Analyzing Clouds Images

The estimation the fractal dimensions of clouds of 2.3, 2.5, and 2.8 using Triangular Prism Surface Area Procedure algorithm for whole image. TPSA Whole D = 2.3 2.44 D = 2.5 2.60 D = 2.8 2.81

Developed Algorithms
Piecewise-threshold-box-counting (PTBC), Piecewise modified box-counting (PMBC), Piecewise triangular prism surface area (PTPSA).

PTBC Algorithm for Brain MRI Detection

Load .pgm MR image Divide the image into sub-images

Histogram the subimages intensity

Divide the sub-images into different Intensity period Count the occupied box number (N) of box size (r) Calculate FD using ln(N)/ln(1/r)
No

Cumulative histogram

No Yes

Is it the last threshold

Last sub-images
Yes

Plot sub-images FD versus cumulative histogram

Brain MR Images (source: Harvard med school web)

m35

m40

m45

m35b

m40b

m45b

m35w

m40w

m45w

PTBC Algorithm Analyzing MR Images

PMBC and PTPSA Algorithms for Brain MRI Detection

Load .pgm normal MRI Divide the image into sub-images
PMBC or PTPSA

Load .pgm test MRI Divide the image into sub-images

PMBC or PTPSA

PMBC

PTPSA

PMBC
Box Size r = 3, 5,.. 13 Count sub-image
N = floor { (max min)/r } +1

Box Size r = 3, 5,.. 13 Count sub-image

N = floor { (max min)/r } +1

Box Size r = 3, 5,.. 13

Box Size r = 3, 5,.. 13

PTPSA

Count sub-image N = sum of top area Calculate sub-image FD = ln N versus ln 1/r

Count sub-image N = sum of top area Calculate sub-image FD = ln N versus ln 1/r

Same Yes
Compare FD?

No

Last sub-image

Yes Not same

Last sub-image

No

Record FD and position

Plot tumor position

Illustration of the tumor positions and differences in FD between the normal and tumor MR images using PMBC algorithm (8 x 8)

m35b

m35 and m35b

m35 and m35bw

m35w

m40b

m40 and m40b

m40 and m40bw

m40w

m45b

m45 and m45b

m45 and m45bw

m45w

Illustration of the tumor positions and differences in FD between the normal and tumor MR images using PTPSA algorithm

m35b

m35 and m35b

m35 and m35bw

m35w

m40b

m40 and m40b

M40 and m40bw

m40w

m45b

m45 and m45b

m45 and m45bw

m45w

Real Brain MR Images (source: ACR CD)

306-a

306-b

401-a

401-b

503-a

503-b

The results of PTBC algorithm test on real MR image 306-a and 306-b, 401-a and 401-b, 503-a and 503-b divided into 2 x 2 pieces

Illustration of the tumor positions and differences in FD between MR images using PMBC and PTPSA algorithms

306-a

306-b

PMBC_306

PTPSA_306

401-a

401-b

PMBC_401

PTPSA_401

503-a

503-b

PMBC_503

PTPSA_503

Tumor Detection Multimedia Interface

http://engronline.ee.memphis.edu/iftekhar/ISIP_det.htm

Tumor Detection Database Support

Conclusion
The original box-counting (BC) method offers correct results for 1-D signal only. However, BC fails to yield correct result for 2-D image. The PTBC method can detect the tumor in MR images, though it is hard to locate the exact position of tumor. The PMBC and PTPSA methods can detect and locate the tumor correctly when applied to the brain tumor MR images. The PMBC algorithm is more sensitive and offers better result to detect and locate the tumor.

Conclusion
This program is first developed in C on Unix OS. We then develop an easy and friendly user interface in java. We automate the tumor identification process by building a reference FD database to compare with test brain images. We improve the algorithms such that we divide each MR image into two halves use one half as reference for the other. The research is presented at the World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Chicago, June, 2000.

Future Work
Develop a more robust algorithm for tumor detection to detect hard-to-recognize feature. Combination of multiresolution-based wavelet to fractional Brownian motion analysis? Extend to volume rendering/registration. Expand web-based approach to support remote learning, surgery and research.

Reference
1. 2. B. B. Mandelbrot, The fractal geometry of nature, Freeman, San Francisco, (1983). D. Comis, Fractals--A bridge to the future for soil science, Agricultural Research Magazine. 46(4), pp. 10-13, (1998). 3. N. Sarkar and B. B. Chaudhuri, An efficient approach to estimate fractal dimension of textural images, Pattern Recognition. 23(9), pp. 1035-1041, (1992). 4. S. Davies and P. Hall, Fractal analysis of surface roughness by using spatial data, Journal of The Royal Statistical Society Series, B Statistical Methodology. 61(1), pp. 3-29, (1999). 5. D. Osman, D. Newitt, A. Gies, T. Budinger, V. Truong, and S. Majumdar, Fractal based image analysis of human trabecular bone using the box counting algorithm: impact of resolution and relationship to standard measures of trabecular bone structure, Fractals. 6(3), pp. 275-283, (1998). 6. C. B. Caldwell, S. J. Stapleton, D. W. Hodsworth, R. A. Jong, W. J. Weiser, G. Cooke, and M. J. Yaffe, Characterisation of mammographic parenchymal pattern by fractal dimension, Physics in Medicine & Biology. 35(2), pp. 235-247, (1990). 7. R. L. Webber, T. E. Underhill, R. A. Horton, R. L. Dixon, T. L. Pope. Jr, Predicting osseous changes in ankle fractures, IEEE Engineering In Medicine And Biology Magazine. 12(1), pp. 103-110, (1993). 8. N. Mihara, K. Kuriyama, S. Kido, C. Kuroda, T. Johkoh, H. Naito, and H. Nakamura, The usefulness of fractal geometry for the diagnosis of small peripheral lung tumors, Nippon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi. 58(4), pp. 148-151, (1998). 9. S. Pohlman, K. A. Powell, N. A. Obuchowski, W. A. Chilcote, and S. Grundfest-Broniatowski, Quantitative classification of breast tumor in digitized mammograms, Medical Physics. 23(8), pp. 1337-1345, (1996). 10. V. Swarnakar, R. S. Acharya, C. Sibata and K. Shin, Fractal based characterization of structural changes in biomedical images. SPIE. 2709, pp. 444-455, (1996). 11. A. Bru, J. M. Pastor, I. Fernaud, I. Bru, S. Melle, C. Berenguer, Super-rough dynamics on tumor growth, Physical Review Letters. 81(18), pp. 4008-4011, (1998). 12. K. J. Falconer, Chapter 2: Hausdorff measure and dimension, In Fractal Geometry Mathematical Foundations And Applications. Thomson Press Ltd, (1990). 13. K. C. Clarke, Computation of the fractal dimension of topographic surfaces using the triangular prism surface area method. Computers and Geosciences 12( 5), pp. 713-722, (1986). 14. B. B. Mandelbrot and J. W. Van Ness, Fractional Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications. SIAM Review. 10(40), pp. 422-437, (1968).