A Low-Cost Radar-based Domain Adaptive Breast
Cancer Screening System
Samuel Claflin
CUBICS Lab
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Massachusetts Lowell
samuel_claflin@student.uml.edu
Abstract— Over the past three decades, the advancements of
breast cancer screening technologies such mammography,
ultrasound, Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) saved countless
lives. The invention of mammography screening of breast cancer
in the 1990s led a technological revolution which is, now-a-days,
coupled with MRI and/or ultrasound to achieve diagnoses of much
greater accuracy than previously attainable. However, these
technologies (mammography, ultrasound, MRI) are not as widely
available to patients as one might assume less fortunate countries
(such as Bangladesh) often cannot afford the potentially enormous
price tag that several ultrasound machines of sufficient quality for
accurate diagnoses incurs. In this paper, we present a low-cost
(<100 USD) millimeter Wave (mmWave) Radar sensor array (3-
10 GHz) imaging technology and a deep learning domain
adaptation model-based breast cancer screening system. More
specifically, (i) we develop a mmWave Radar sensor array (18
sensor antennas) based 2D imaging system; (ii) we develop a deep
learning based domain adaptation model that can learn breast
segmentation and cancer detection from expensive source data
(mammography, ultrasound) and transfer the knowledge to less
expensive target data (Radar images), (iii) we validated our system
and methods by utilizing our existing mammography and
ultrasound breast cancer screening data as well as 14 patients'
Radar images collected from a third world country (Bangladesh).
Keywords— domain adaptation, deep learning, breast cancer
detection, radar imaging, mmWave
I. INTRODUCTION
It’s no secret that breast cancer serves as one of the greatest
threats to women’s lives worldwide — being the second leading
cause of death in women with a 2.6% chance of being fatal to a
woman each year, trailing only behind lung cancer [10]. As is
with all types of cancer, early detection and early treatment are
absolutely essential to preventing mortality. Since 1990, breast
cancer mortality rates have dropped by 30% largely due to the
great strides made in mammography-based screening methods
[5]. While this is undeniably a great success for the medical and
scientific communities, it is crucial to maintain the momentum
and build upon these achievements in order to further prevent
countless fatalities. It is this very mindset that led to the
development and significant advancements in both MRI [12]
and ultrasound-based [11] screening methods that are
commonly coupled with mammography [5]. MRI screening has
shown to provide a greater detection rate when performed in
addition to mammography, but is typically only recommended
for patients with a hereditary risk for developing breast cancer
that exceeds 20% due to its egregious expenses [13]; the
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
Mohammad Arif Ul Alam
CUBICS Lab
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Massachusetts Lowell
mohammadariful_alam@uml.edu
addition of MRI screening to annual mammogram screenings
increases medical expenses for a given patient by $50,000+ on
average [5]. Ultrasound offers a fair middle-ground to the two
former methods - proving to be significantly less expensive for
patients than MRI screenings and a decent competitor to the
mammogram-MRI duo in accurate detection [13]. However,
ultrasound machines suitable for accurate breast cancer
screening are oftentimes unaffordable for hospitals in less-
fortunate countries (like Bangladesh) with an average cost of
$20,000-$40,000 for a single, small unit and costs typically
exceed this average by a great margin [3].
In this paper, we investigate a suitable alternative to both
ultrasound and MRI supplemental breast cancer screening
methods that is capable of achieving equivalent or better
accuracy while being significantly more affordable and
accessible. In order to accomplish this, we utilize an inexpensive
low-cost mmWave radar sensor array-based imaging technology
(technology commonly found in stud finders) coupled with deep
learning and transfer learning.
Figure 1: Overall System Architectural Diagram
II. OVERALL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
Fig 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of our developed system
architecture which consists of four components:
A. Radar Sensing System
We use Walabot [9] mmWave imaging radar sensor. The
Walabot radar sensor unit is a low-cost (79 USD) radar sensor
that operates by using an antenna array (15 antenna arrays with
frequency ranging from 3 – 10 GHz) to transmit radar signals,
receive any returned signals, and use these received signals to
construct a matrix of raw image data that can be accessed
through a USB interface and selected programming language
API. The aspect of sensors of this nature that proves to be most
crucial to the possible detection of breast cancer is the property
of the transmitted waves that causes them to pass through
dielectric materials (such as a wall) and bounce off of conductive
materials (such as a nail within a stud) [9] In theory, signals
transmitted by the Walabot sensor would be able to pass through
skin and flesh, but bounce off of a region within the breast that
is potentially cancerous and generate raw image data similar to
that of mammogramography, ultrasound, and MRI. Fig 2 shows
our Walabot mmWave sensor unit (Fig 2-a) and a sample 2D
image generated from the radar signal return with cancer (Fig 2-
b) and no cancer (Fig 2-c)
Figure 2: (a) mmWave Radar Sensor device with axis indication (b)
Sample 2D(a)image generated from mmWave
(b) Radar Sensor for cancerous
(c)
and (c) no cancerous breast.
B. Data Preprocessing
Our Radar sensing system saves the raw 2D images as well
as raw radar sensor data. We annotate the images with “No
Cancer” and “Cancer” labels creating a binary classification
problem. We apply typical standardization, normalization and
transformation prior training deep learning model.
Figure 3: U-NET Model Architecture
C. U-NET Training
The convolutional neural network architecture chosen for
the task of segmenting regions of interest within mammogram,
ultrasound, and Walabot images is known as the U-Net Model—
an advanced CNN developed specifically for the segmentation
of biomedical images. In Fig 3, each blue arrow represents a
passage of the image data through a convolutional layer of the
network with a rectified linear unit (ReLU) activation function.
Each red arrow represents a passage of the image data through a
max pooling layer; these layers are responsible for reducing the
size of the input feature maps. Due to the fact that the first half
of the U-Net model progressively reduces the x and y
dimensions of the input image until it’s been reduced to a single
vector of data, it’s referred to as the contractionside. The second
half of the U-Net model is referred to as the expansionside
because it is up-convolutional layers in conjunction with
additional standard convolutional layers result in the single-
dimensional vector being converted into a two-channel, high
resolution segmentation map. Each channel in the output
segmentation map corresponds with one of two classes:
background or region of interest (ROI) [6]. We consider U-NET
model as a feature extraction layers for domain adaptation
(Feature Layers in Fig 4).
Figure 4: Domain Adaptation Model Schematic Diagram
D. Domain Adaptation Model
While the performance of convolutional neural networks for
breast computer vision tasks is undeniable, these networks often
perform exceptionally poorly in the absence of exceedingly
large datasets. As previously mentioned, datasets of this size and
of high quality are especially hard to come by in biomedical
applications. Strategies such as data augmentation or performing
a predetermined series of transformations on each provided
image in order to generate several additional images, have been
used with profound success [7]. In order to overcome the
inevitable data shortage that would be faced during
experimentation due to the fact that the entirety of the Walabot
image dataset would need to be generated by our research team,
we decide that data augmentation would be implemented in
addition to transfer learning. Transfer learning or Domain
Adaptation refers to a method of machine learning in which a
model is first trained on one or more general tasks known as
sourcetask are typically closely related to the targettask. After
the initial source training is complete, the model is adapted to
the target task and, in theory, will achieve a greater performance
due to its prior knowledge of the related source task(s). In
addition to achieving a greater performance, transfer learning
allows all machine learning models to more closely mimic
human learning by emulating the way in which new information
is related to prior concepts in order to develop a more intuitive
understanding [8].
Training Domain Adaptation Model: We develop a transfer
learning framework as shown in Fig 4. The transfer learning
framework has two CNN based models: Source and Target
models. Each of the model has two component layers, (i)
Feature Layers and (ii) Classification Layers. At first, we train
our baseline model (U-NET) using source dataset and consider
as the source model. While training the source model, we
separate the final two layers of U-NET model as
“Classification Layers” and rest of the U-NET model as
“Feature Layers”. After training the source model, we separate
out the feature layers, freeze the weight update of feature
layer, add classification layers with a fully connected dense
layer (softmax activation) of two classes categorical output
and enable weight update capabilities on the classification
layer. The newly developed model is called “Target Model”,
which we aim to train using target dataset. The final loss
function will be an energy function that is computed by a
pixel-wise soft-max over the final feature map combined with
the cross-entropy loss function.
III. EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION
To evaluate our proposed framework, we used several existing
datasets as well as collected a small amount of exploratory
dataset under IRB exception. Then, we have evaluated our
proposed framework’s efficiency in terms of breast cancer
segmentation and screening accuracies.
A. Radar System Sensitivity Test in Lab Environment
Due to the fact that the strength of the signal received by the
Walabot sensor is dependent upon the conductivity of the
material that it comes in contact with, we conducted an
experiment to confirm that the sensor's sensitivity was suitable
for the breast screening task before we started collecting data
from patients. The procedure of the experiment was as
follows: Inject several pieces of thick, fatty pork with a dense
fluid; calibrate the Walabot on a portion of pork that was
known to not contain fluid; following the calibration period,
slowly move the sensor from the area not containing the fluid
to the area containing the fluid and take note of any visible
differences that may appear in the scan in addition to saving
all of the raw image data obtained from the sensor. All
visualization of the raw image data obtained from the sensor
as well as the recording of these images was performed using
a proprietary desktop application written using C++ in
conjunction with an API for the Walabot sensor provided by
Vayyar. The application allowed for all of the Walabot
sensor's parameters to be procedurally adjusted in order to
achieve optimal results for the target scenario in addition to
automatically converting the unformatted raw image data into
several raw image slices that can be cycled through to
efficiently visualize the entirety of the raw image data in an
intuitive manner. The experiment was performed several times
on 5 unique pieces of pork and data was collected from
several different locations and angles. Additionally, Ferrofluid
was chosen as the dense injection medium that the sensor
would attempt to detect throughout the experiment iterations.
This experiment confirmed that a standard Walabot sensor
was indeed capable of differentiating between regions of
similar moisture/density within a single object.
B. Datasets
We have utilized the following datasets:
1. Breast Ultrasound Dataset (BUD) includes breast
ultrasound images among women in ages between 25
and 75 years old. This data was collected in 2018 [2].
The number of patients is 600 female patients having
750 images. The images are in PNG format. The
images are categorized into three classes, which are
normal, benign, and malignant. We consider the
normal and benign types of ultrasound images as
“No_Cancer” and malignant type of ultrasound
images as “Cancer” cancer labels
2. Digital Database for Screening Mammography
(DDSM) includes decompressed images, data
selection and curation by trained mammographers,
updated mass segmentation and bounding boxes, and
pathologic diagnosis for training data, formatted
similarly to modern computer vision data sets. The
data set contains 753 calcification cases and 891
mass cases, providing a data-set size capable of
analyzing decision support systems in
mammography.
3. Our Data has been collected in a rural area (Khulna)
of a third world country (Bangladesh). The data is
extremely small comparing to the other datasets. Our
data includes 14 Walabot radar image data with a
diagnosis report (cancer or no cancer) where 4 of
them have cancer and 10 of them have no cancer. Fig
2 shows cancerous (Fig 2(b)) and not cancerous (Fig
2(c) breast cancer screening image via Walabot
mmWave radar sensor.
C. Training Domain Adaptation Models
We consider the BUD, DDSM and our datasets towards
evaluating our proposed domain adaptation framework. In this
regard, we ran the following transfer learning experiments:
BUD ® DDSM: We down sized high-resolution ultrasound to
the similar dimension of mammography image, trained the
source model using Ultrasound images until convergence,
froze the feature layers, add classification layers towards
developing target model and train the target model using
Mammography images.
DDSM ® BUD: We down sized high-resolution ultrasound to
the similar dimension of mammography image, trained the
source model using mammography images until convergence,
froze the feature layers, add classification layers towards
developing target model and train the target model using
Ultrasound images.
DDSM ® Our Data: We down sized high-resolution
mammography to the similar dimension of our radar image,
trained the source model using mammography images until
convergence, froze the feature layers, add classification layers
towards developing target model and train the target model
using our radar images.
BUD ® Our Data: We down sized high-resolution
ultrasound to the similar dimension of our radar image, trained
the source model using ultrasound images until convergence,
froze the feature layers, add classification layers towards
developing target model and train the target model using our
radar images.
D. Results
We first created training and testing datasets considering the
similar distribution of entire dataset on each sample. Then we
trained each of the model using training and testing samples.
Table 1 shows the transfer learning accuracy, specificity,
sensitivity and final losses. At first, for U-NET model (target
only), we can see that mammography image-based
classification accuracy outperforms any other classification,
while radar image-based classification alone (target only)
provides the lowest accuracy of detecting breast cancer. We
can explain this result as follows: according to the study,
mammography has the lowest noises for human body imaging
while radar has the highest noises involved while creating
images of human flesh. After applying the transfer learning
framework, we can see all of the baseline models (target only)
have been improved significantly.
Figure 5: Validation Accuracy and losses of target transfer learning in
different use cases: BUD ® DDSM, DDSM ® BUD, DDSM ® Our Data, BUD ® Our
Data
Table 1: Summary of Results
BUD ® DDSM ® DDSM ®
DDSM BUD Our Data
Target Only 90.33 ± 0.2 91.36± 0.1 69.45± 0.8
Accuracy 93.56 ± 0.2 95.35± 0.2 85.39± 0.4
Specificity 89.45± 0.1 90.50± 0.3 86.80± 0.5
Sensitivity 92.81± 0.2 93.53± 0.1 83.53± 0.3
Loss 0.12± 0.05 0.08± 0.03 0.17± 0.04
As Mammography based breast cancer detection is highly
accurate than ultrasound, we also can see that for the transfer
learning task from Mammography to Our Radar images
(DDSM ® Our Data) provides higher improvements (85.39%)
than that of from Ultrasound (BUD ® Our Data) based image
models (83.75%). We also can observe that we have achieved
satisfactory specificity and sensitivity in detecting breast
cancer using Radar images with promising final loss of
training transfer learning model.
IV. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
We have appropriate datasets for Ultrasound and
Mammography images for breast cancer screening, but we do
not have enough data (only 14 samples) for Radar images.
Although, we have achieved promising results using only 14
radar image samples in our U-NET transfer model, the
baseline U-NET model (Target only in Table 1), radar image
failed significantly. We aim to collect more data from our
study site, Khulna, Bangladesh in future. At the same time, we
aim to collect mammography and ultrasound image of breast
cancer screening along with the Radar images to align and
validate more efficient transfer learning models in future.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, the prospect of significantly reducing the
expense while increasing the accessibility of conducting breast
cancer screenings of quality equivalent to that of modern
standards is proposed. Through the use of radar sensing
technology, deep learning with convolutional neural networks,
and transfer learning, we believe that this goal is achievable in
the very near future. The conduction of transfer learning trials
with an ultrasound dataset as the source and mammogram
dataset as the target confirmed not only that the U-Net Model
performs exceedingly well in this particular biomedical
application, but that models implemented using transfer
learning can, at the very least, achieve an accuracy equivalent
to that of a model trained entirely on a target dataset, but with
significantly less target data required. It is our hope that the
impending construction of a Radar image dataset will allow
satisfactory results to be obtained with the use of these modern
architectures and transfer learning techniques.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This project has been funded by University of Massachusetts
Lowell Immersive Scholars Program.
REFERENCES
[1] G. Eason, B. Noble, and I. N. Sneddon, “On certain integrals of Lipschitz-
Hankel type involving products of Bessel functions,” Phil. Trans. Roy.
BUD Soc. London, vol. A247, pp. 529–551, April 1955.
® Our
[2] Walid Al-Dhabyani, Mohammed Gomaa, Hussien Khaled, Aly Fahmy,
Data
Dataset of breast ultrasound images, Data in Brief, Volume 28, 2020.
69.45± 0.8 [3] Escobar, A. (2020, January). Buying a Breast Ultrasound Machine:
83.75± 0.5 Prices, Features, and Advice
85.79± 0.4 (https://www.kompareit.com/business/medical-equipment-buying-an-
82.85± 0.2 ultrasound-machine.html)
0.19± 0.065 [4] Gu, Jiuxiang et al. “Recent advances in convolutional neural networks.”
Pattern Recognit. 77 (2018): 354-377.
[5] Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with
imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the
ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and
other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J
Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(1):18-27. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022
[6] Ronneberger O., Fischer P., Brox T. (2015) U-Net: Convolutional
Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation. In: Navab N., Hornegger
J., Wells W., Frangi A. (eds) Medical Image Computing and Computer-
Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015. MICCAI 2015. Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, vol 9351. Springer, Cham.
[7] Tellez D, Litjens G, Bándi P, et al. Quantifying the effects of data
augmentation and stain color normalization in convolutional neural
networks for computational pathology. Med Image Anal.
[8] L. Torrey & J. Shavlik (2009). Transfer Learning. In E. Soria, J. Martin,
R. Magdalena, M. Martinez & A. Serrano, editor, Handbook of Research
on Machine Learning Applications. IGI Global.
[9] Vayyar. (2020). Walabot Technical Brief.
[10] Wyant, T. (2020, January 8). How Common Is Breast Cancer?: Breast
Cancer Statistics
[11] Thigpen D, Kappler A, Brem R. The Role of Ultrasound in Screening
Dense Breasts-A Review of the Literature and Practical Solutions for
Implementation. Diagnostics (Basel). 2018;8(1):20. Published 2018 Mar
16. doi:10.3390/diagnostics8010020
[12] Radhakrishna S, Agarwal S, Parikh PM, et al. Role of magnetic resonance
imaging in breast cancer management. South Asian J Cancer.
2018;7(2):69-71. doi:10.4103/sajc.sajc_104_18
[13] Malur S, Wurdinger S, Moritz A, Michels W, Schneider A. Comparison
of written reports of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance
mammography for preoperative evaluation of breast lesions, with special
emphasis on magnetic resonance mammography. Breast Cancer Res.
2001