Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2008; 47(04): 322-327
DOI: 10.3414/ME0440
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

An Information-theoretical Model for Breast Cancer Detection

D. Blokh
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
N. Zurgil
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
I. Stambler
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
E. Afrimzon
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
Y. Shafran
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
E. Korech
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
,
J. Sandbank
2   Department of Pathology and Cytology, Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel
,
M. Deutsch
1   The Biophysical Interdisciplinary Jerome Schottenstein Center for the Research and the Technology of the Cellome, Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 28 June 2006

accepted: 17 December 2007

Publication Date:
18 January 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: Formal diagnostic modeling is an important line of modern biological and medical research. The construction of a formal diagnostic model consists of two stages: first, the estimation of correlation between model parameters and the disease under consideration; and second, the construction of a diagnostic decision rule using these correlation estimates. A serious drawback of current diagnostic models is the absence of a unified mathematical methodological approach to implementing these two stages. The absence of aunified approach makesthe theoretical/biomedical substantiation of diagnostic rules difficult and reduces the efficacyofactual diagnostic model application. Methods: The present study constructs a formal model for breast cancer detection. The diagnostic model is based on information theory. Normalized mutual information is chosen as the measure of relevance between parameters and the patterns studied. The “nearest neighbor” rule is utilized for diagnosis, while the distance between elements is the weighted Hamming distance. The model concomitantly employs cellular fluorescence polarization as the quantitative input parameter and cell receptor expression as qualitative parameters.

Results: Twenty-four healthy individuals and 34 patients (not including the subjects analyzed for the model construction) were tested by the model. Twenty-three healthy subjects and 34 patients were correctly diagnosed.

Conclusions: The proposed diagnostic model is an open one,i.e.it can accommodate new additional parameters, which may increase its effectiveness.

Keywords

Formal diagnostic model - normalized mutual information - weighted Hamming distance - breast cancer(BC) - fluorescence polarization (FP)
 

  • References

  • 1 Gelfand IM, Rosenfeld BI, Shifrin MA. Essays on Collaboration of Mathematicians and Physicians. Moscow: Nauka; 1989. (Russian)
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Lukas PJF, Abu-Hanna A. Prognostic methods in medicine. Artif Intell Med 1999; 15: 105-119.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Verhayen CJDM, Duin RPW, Groen FCA, Joosen JC, Verbeek PW. Progress report on pattern recognition. Rep Prog Phys 1980; 43: 785-831.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wolberg WH, Mangasarian OL. Multisurface method of pattern separation for medical diagnosis applied to breast cytology. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1990; 87: 9193-9196.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mangasarian OL, Street WN, Wolberg WH. Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis via linear programming. Oper Res 1995; 43: 570-577.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Blokh D, Afrimzon E, Stambler I, Korech E, Shafran Y, Zurgil N, Deutsch M. Breast cancer detection by Michaelis-Menten constants via linear programming. Comp Meth Prog Biomed 2007; 85: 210-213.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Floyd CE, Yun AJ, Sullivan D, Kornguth P. Prediction of breast cancer malignancy using an artificial neural network. Cancer 1994; 74: 2944-2998.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Furundzic D, Djordjevic M, Bekic AJ. Neural networks approach to early breast cancer detection. J Syst Architect 1998; 44: 617-633.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Setiono R. Generating concise and accurate classification rules for breast cancer diagnosis. Artif Intell Med 2000; 18: 205-219.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 1948; 27: 379-423 623-656.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Khinchin AI. Mathematical Foundations of Information Theory. New York: Dover; 1957
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Hamming RW. Coding and Information Theory. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Cover TM, Thomas JA. Elements of Information Theory. New York: Wiley; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Wolberg WH. Inhibition of migration of human autogenous and allogeneic leukocytes by extracts of patients’ cancers. Cancer Res 1971; 31: 798-802.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Shapiro HM. Practical Flow Cytometry (3rd ed.). New York: Alan R Liss Inc; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Kaplan M, Trebnyikov E, Berke G. Fluorescence depolarization as an early measure of T Lymphocyte stimulation. J Immunol Methods 1997; 201: 15-24.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hayes DF. Tumor markers for breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1993; 4: 807-819.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Disis ML, Knutson KL, Schiffman K, Rinn K, McNeel DG. Pre-existent immunity to the HER-2/neo oncogenic protein in patients with HER-2/neu overexpressing breast and ovarian cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000; 62: 245-252.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nicolis G, Prigogine I. Exploring Complexity. New York: WH Freeman and Company; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Chou WC, Neifeld MA, Xuan R. Informationbased optical design for binary-valued imagery. Appl Optics 2000; 39: 1731-1742.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tourassi GD, Frederick ED, Floyd Jr. CE. Application of the mutual information criterion for feature selection in computer-aided diagnostics. Med Phys 2001; 28: 2394-2402.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zvarova J, Studeny M. Information theoretical approach to constitution and reduction of medical data. Int J Med Inf 1997; 45: 65-74.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rényi A. On measures of dependence. Acta Math Acad Sci Hung 1959; 10: 441-451.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Benish WA. Mutual information as an index of diagnostic test performance. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 260-264.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Fagen RM. Information measures: statistical confidence limits and inference. J Theor Biol 1978; 73: 61-79.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Blokh ASh.. Graph Schemes and Algorithms. Minsk: Vishaya Shkola; 1987. (Russian).
    Google Scholar
  • 27 D’hulst R, Rodgers GJ. The Hamming distance in the minority game. PhysicaA 1999; 270: 514-525.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bell CB. Mutual information and maximal correlation as measures of dependence. Ann Math Stat 1962; 33: 587-595.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Deutsch M, Tirosh R, Kaufman M, Zurgil N, Weinreb A. Fluorescence polarization as a functional parameter in monitoring living cells: theory and practice. J Fluoresc 2002; 12: 25-44.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Perrin F. La fluorscence des solutions. Ann Phys (Paris) 1929; 12: 169-275.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Scutt D, Lancaster GA, Manning JT. Breast asymmetry and predisposition to breast cancer. Breast Can Res 2006; 8: R14.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wong STC, Liu KY, Zhou X. Cancer classification and prediction using logistic regression with Bayesian gene selection. J Biomed Inf 2004; 37: 249-259.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Schwarzer G, Nagata T, Mattern D, Schmelzeisen R, Schumacher M. Comparison of fuzzy inference, logistic regression, and classification trees (CART). Prediction of cervical lymph node metastasis in carcinoma of the tongue. Methods Inf Med 2003; 42: 572-577.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Buhl A, Zofel P. SPSS Version 10. Addison-Wesley 2001
    PubMedGoogle Scholar