Saugata Sinha1, Navalgund A Rao2, Bhargava K Chinni3, Vikram S Dogra3. 1. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York USA saugata.sinha@ece.vnit.ac.in. 2. Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York USA. 3. University of Rochester, Rochester, New York USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of differentiating malignant prostate from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and normal prostate tissue by performing frequency domain analysis of photoacoustic images acquired at 2 different wavelengths. METHODS: We performed multiwavelength photoacoustic imaging on freshly excised human prostate specimens taken from a total of 30 patients undergoing prostatectomy for biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Histologic slides marked by a genitourinary pathologist were used as ground truth to define regions of interest (ROIs) in the photoacoustic images. Primarily, 3 different prostate tissue categories, namely malignant, BPH, and normal, were considered, while a fourth category named nonmalignant was formed by combining the ROIs corresponding to BPH and normal tissue together. We extracted 3 spectral parameters, namely slope, midband fit, and intercept, from power spectra of the radiofrequency photoacoustic signals corresponding to the 3 primary tissue categories. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 53 ROIs selected from the photoacoustic images of 30 patients. According to the histopathologic analysis, 19 ROIs were malignant, 8 were BPH, and 26 were normal. All the 3 spectral parameters and C-scan grayscale photoacoustic image pixel values were found to be significantly different (P < .01) between malignant and nonmalignant prostate as well as malignant and normal prostate. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of our ex vivo human prostate study suggest that spectral parameters obtained by performing frequency domain analysis of photoacoustic signals can be used to differentiate between malignant and nonmalignant prostate.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of differentiating malignant prostate from benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and normal prostate tissue by performing frequency domain analysis of photoacoustic images acquired at 2 different wavelengths. METHODS: We performed multiwavelength photoacoustic imaging on freshly excised human prostate specimens taken from a total of 30 patients undergoing prostatectomy for biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Histologic slides marked by a genitourinary pathologist were used as ground truth to define regions of interest (ROIs) in the photoacoustic images. Primarily, 3 different prostate tissue categories, namely malignant, BPH, and normal, were considered, while a fourth category named nonmalignant was formed by combining the ROIs corresponding to BPH and normal tissue together. We extracted 3 spectral parameters, namely slope, midband fit, and intercept, from power spectra of the radiofrequency photoacoustic signals corresponding to the 3 primary tissue categories. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 53 ROIs selected from the photoacoustic images of 30 patients. According to the histopathologic analysis, 19 ROIs were malignant, 8 were BPH, and 26 were normal. All the 3 spectral parameters and C-scan grayscale photoacoustic image pixel values were found to be significantly different (P < .01) between malignant and nonmalignant prostate as well as malignant and normal prostate. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary results of our ex vivo human prostate study suggest that spectral parameters obtained by performing frequency domain analysis of photoacoustic signals can be used to differentiate between malignant and nonmalignant prostate.
Entities:
Keywords:
frequency domain analysis; genitourinary ultrasound; multiwavelength; photoacoustic imaging; power spectrum; prostate cancer
Authors: Ahn Yi; Jeong Kon Kim; Seong Ho Park; Kyoung Won Kim; Ho Sung Kim; Jung Hoon Kim; Hyo Won Eun; Kyoung-Sik Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tomas Svensson; Erik Alerstam; Margrét Einarsdóttír; Katarina Svanberg; Stefan Andersson-Engels Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.207
Authors: Marko Brock; Christian von Bodman; Rein Jüri Palisaar; Björn Löppenberg; Florian Sommerer; Thomas Deix; Joachim Noldus; Thilo Eggert Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Janggun Jo; Javed Siddiqui; Yunhao Zhu; Linyu Ni; Sri-Rajasekhar Kothapalli; Scott A Tomlins; John T Wei; Evan T Keller; Aaron M Udager; Xueding Wang; Guan Xu Journal: Opt Lett Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 3.776
Authors: G Ramkumar; P Bhuvaneswari; R Radhika; S Saranya; S Vijayalakshmi; M Karpagam; Florin Wilfred Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-20 Impact factor: 3.009
Authors: Brittani L Bungart; Lu Lan; Pu Wang; Rui Li; Michael O Koch; Liang Cheng; Timothy A Masterson; Murat Dundar; Ji-Xin Cheng Journal: Photoacoustics Date: 2018-08-03