PURPOSE: Computer aided detection (CAD) data analysis procedures are introduced and applied to derive composite diffuse optical tomography (DOT) signatures of malignancy in human breast tissue. In contrast to previous optical mammography analysis schemes, the new statistical approach utilizes optical property distributions across multiple subjects and across the many voxels of each subject. The methodology is tested in a population of 35 biopsy-confirmed malignant lesions. METHODS: DOT CAD employs multiparameter, multivoxel, multisubject measurements to derive a simple function that transforms DOT images of tissue chromophores and scattering into a probability of malignancy tomogram. The formalism incorporates both intrasubject spatial heterogeneity and intersubject distributions of physiological properties derived from a population of cancercontaining breasts (the training set). A weighted combination of physiological parameters from the training set define a malignancy parameter (M), with the weighting factors optimized by logistic regression to separate training-set cancer voxels from training-set healthy voxels. The utility of M is examined, employing 3D DOT images from an additional subjects (the test set). RESULTS: Initial results confirm that the automated technique can produce tomograms that distinguish healthy from malignant tissue. When compared to a gold standard tissue segmentation, this protocol produced an average true positive rate (sensitivity) of 89% and a true negative rate (specificity) of 94% using an empirically chosen probability threshold. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the automated multisubject, multivoxel, multiparameter statistical analysis of diffuse optical data is potentially quite useful, producing tomograms that distinguish healthy from malignant tissue. This type of data analysis may also prove useful for suppression of image artifacts.
PURPOSE: Computer aided detection (CAD) data analysis procedures are introduced and applied to derive composite diffuse optical tomography (DOT) signatures of malignancy in human breast tissue. In contrast to previous optical mammography analysis schemes, the new statistical approach utilizes optical property distributions across multiple subjects and across the many voxels of each subject. The methodology is tested in a population of 35 biopsy-confirmed malignant lesions. METHODS: DOT CAD employs multiparameter, multivoxel, multisubject measurements to derive a simple function that transforms DOT images of tissue chromophores and scattering into a probability of malignancy tomogram. The formalism incorporates both intrasubject spatial heterogeneity and intersubject distributions of physiological properties derived from a population of cancercontaining breasts (the training set). A weighted combination of physiological parameters from the training set define a malignancy parameter (M), with the weighting factors optimized by logistic regression to separate training-set cancer voxels from training-set healthy voxels. The utility of M is examined, employing 3D DOT images from an additional subjects (the test set). RESULTS: Initial results confirm that the automated technique can produce tomograms that distinguish healthy from malignant tissue. When compared to a gold standard tissue segmentation, this protocol produced an average true positive rate (sensitivity) of 89% and a true negative rate (specificity) of 94% using an empirically chosen probability threshold. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the automated multisubject, multivoxel, multiparameter statistical analysis of diffuse optical data is potentially quite useful, producing tomograms that distinguish healthy from malignant tissue. This type of data analysis may also prove useful for suppression of image artifacts.
Authors: Soren D Konecky; George Y Panasyuk; Kijoon Lee; Vadim Markel; Arjun G Yodh; John C Schotland Journal: Opt Express Date: 2008-03-31 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Y Chen; G Zheng; Z H Zhang; D Blessington; M Zhang; H Li; Q Liu; L Zhou; X Intes; S Achilefu; B Chance Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: J M Cochran; S H Chung; A Leproux; W B Baker; D R Busch; A M DeMichele; J Tchou; B J Tromberg; A G Yodh Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Ludguier D Montejo; Jingfei Jia; Hyun K Kim; Uwe J Netz; Sabine Blaschke; Gerhard A Müller; Andreas H Hielscher Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: H Y Ban; M Schweiger; V C Kavuri; J M Cochran; L Xie; D R Busch; J Katrašnik; S Pathak; S H Chung; K Lee; R Choe; B J Czerniecki; S R Arridge; A G Yodh Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Molly L Flexman; Fotios Vlachos; Hyun Keol Kim; Shashank R Sirsi; Jianzhong Huang; Sonia L Hernandez; Tessa B Johung; Jeffrey W Gander; Ari R Reichstein; Brooke S Lampl; Antai Wang; Mark A Borden; Darrell J Yamashiro; Jessica J Kandel; Andreas H Hielscher Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: David R Busch; Regine Choe; Mark A Rosen; Wensheng Guo; Turgut Durduran; Michael D Feldman; Carolyn Mies; Brian J Czerniecki; Julia Tchou; Angela Demichele; Mitchell D Schnall; Arjun G Yodh Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 3.732