Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Volume 40, Issue 2 , Pages 115-126 , June 2007

Towards an intelligent medical system for the aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment

  • Jaime S. Cardoso

      Affiliations

    • Faculdade de Engenharia and INESC Porto, Universidade do Porto, Campus da FEUP, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, no. 378 4200-465 Porto, Portugal
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +351 222094000; fax: +351 222094250.
    web address
    • ,
  • Maria J. Cardoso

      Affiliations

    • Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade do Porto, Alameda do Prof. Hernâni Monteiro, 4200-319 Porto, Portugal

Received 1 September 2006 ,Revised 19 January 2007 ,Accepted 8 February 2007.

References 

  1. Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1979;5:257–261
  2. Beadle GF, Silver B, Botnick L, Hellman S, Harris JR. Cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for early breast cancer. Cancer. 1984;54:2911–2918
  3. Pierquin B, Huart J, Raynal M, Otmezguine Y, Calitchi E, Mazeron JJ, et al. Conservative treatment for breast cancer: long-term results (15 years). Radiother. Oncol. 1991;20:16–23
  4. Pezner RD, Patterson MP, Hill LR, Vora N, Desai KR, Archambeau JO, et al. Breast retraction assessment: an objective evaluation of cosmetic results of patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1985;11:575–578
  5. Sacchini V, Luini A, Tana S, Lozza L, Galimberti V, Merson M, et al. Quantitative and qualitative cosmetic evaluation after conservative treatment for breast cancer. Eur. J. Cancer. 1991;27:1395–1400
  6. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, Yarnold JR, Broderick M, Ross JRG, Goddard A. Cosmetic and functional outcomes of breast conserving treatment for early stage breast cancer. 1. comparison of patients’ ratings, observers’ ratings, and objective assessments. Radiother. Oncol. 1992;25:153–159
  7. Christie DRH, O’Brien M-Y, Christie JA, Kron T, Ferguson SA, Hamilton CS, et al. A comparison of methods of cosmetic assessment in breast conservation treatment. Breast. 1996;5:358–367
  8. Cardoso MJ, Santos AC, Cardoso JS, Barros H, Oliveira MC. Choosing observers for evaluation of aesthetic results in breast cancer conservative treatment. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2005;61:879–881
  9. Limbergen EV, Schueren EV, Tongelen KV. Cosmetic evaluation of breast conserving treatment for mammary cancer. 1. Proposal of a quantitative scoring system. Radiother. Oncol. 1989;16:159–167
  10. Al-Ghazal SK, Blamey RW, Stewart J, Morgan AL. The cosmetic outcome in early breast cancer treated with breast conservation. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 1999;25:566–570
  11. Noguchi M, Saito Y, Mizukami Y, Nonomura A, Ohta N, Koyasaki N, et al. Breast deformity, its correction, and assessment of breast conserving surgery. Breast Cancer Res. Treatment. 1991;18:111–118
  12. Clarke D, Martinez A, Cox RS. Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage i and ii breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1983;9:1807–1813
  13. Beadle GF, Come S, Henderson IC, Silver B, Hellman S, Harris JR. The effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the cosmetic results after primary radiation treatment for early stage breast cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1984;10:2131–2137
  14. Pezner RD, Lipsett JA, Vora NL, Desai KR. Limited usefulness of observer-based cosmesis scales employed to evaluate patients treated conservatively for breast cancer. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1985;11:1117–1119
  15. Tsouskas LI, Fentiman IS. Breast compliance: a new method for evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conservative treatment of early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treatment. 1990;15:185–190
  16. Vrieling C, Collette L, Bartelink E, Borger JH, Brenninkmeyer SJ, Horiot JC, et al. Validation of the methods of cosmetic assessment after breast-conserving therapy in the EORTC boost versus no boost trial. Int. J. Radiation Oncol. Biol. Phys. 1999;45:667–676
  17. Al-Ghazal SK, Fallowfield L, Blamey RW. Patient evaluation of cosmetic outcome after conserving surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 1999;25:344–346
  18. Krishnan L, Stanton AL, Collins CA, Liston VE, Jewell WR. Form or function? Part 2. Objective cosmetic and functional correlates of quality of life in women treated with breast-conserving surgical procedures and radiotherapy. Cancer. 2001;91:2282–2287
  19. Jones J, Hunter D. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. Br. Med. J. 1995;311:376–380
  20. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the delphi survey technique. J. Adv. Nurs. 2000;32:1008–1015
  21. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Santos AC, Barros H, Oliveira MC. Interobserver agreement and consensus over the esthetic evaluation of conservative treatment for breast cancer. Breast. 2006;15:52–57
  22. Cardoso MJ, Cardoso JS, Santos AC, Vrieling C, Christie D, Liljegren G, et al. Factors determining esthetic outcome after breast cancer conservative treatment. Breast J. 2007;13(2):140–146
  23. Duan J, Qiu G. Novel histogram processing for colour image enhancement. In: Proceeding of the third international conference on image and graphics (ICIG’04). IEEE. 2004;p. 55–58
  24. Rubner Y, Puzich J, Tomasi C, Buhmann JM. Empirical evaluation of dissimilarity measures for color and texture. Comput. Vision Image Understanding. 2001;84:25–43
  25. Vapnik VN. Statistical learning theory, ser. adaptive and learning systems for signal processing, communications, and control. New York: Wiley; 1998;
  26. Cardoso JS, da Costa JFP, Cardoso MJ. Modelling ordinal relations with SVMs: an application to objective aesthetic evaluation of breast cancer conservative treatment. Neural Netw. 2005;18:808–817
  27. Vapnik VN. SVMs applied to objective aesthetic evaluation of conservative breast cancer treatment. In: Proceedings of the international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN) 2005, vol. 4. IEEE, Montreal, Canada, August. 2005;p. 2481–2486
  28. Theodoridis S, Koutroumbas K. Pattern recognition. San Diego: Academic Press; 2003;
  29. Frank E, Hall M. A simple approach to ordinal classification. In: Proceedings of the 12th European conference on machine learning, vol. 1. Springer. 2001;p. 145–156
  30. Hastie RT, Friedman RTJ. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, ser. Springer series in statistics. New York: Springer; 2001;August
  31. Press W, Flannery B, Teukolsky S, Vetterling W. Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002;

PII: S0933-3657(07)00020-6

doi: 10.1016/j.artmed.2007.02.007

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Volume 40, Issue 2 , Pages 115-126 , June 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution