BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, and recognized as the third leading cause of mortality in women. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables three dimensional visualization of biological tissue with micrometer level resolution at high speed, and can play an important role in early diagnosis and treatment guidance of breast cancer. In particular, ultra-high resolution (UHR) OCT provides images with better histological correlation. This paper compared UHR OCT performance with standard OCT in breast cancer imaging qualitatively and quantitatively. Automatic tissue classification algorithms were used to automatically detect invasive ductal carcinoma in ex vivo human breast tissue. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human breast tissues, including non-neoplastic/normal tissues from breast reduction and tumor samples from mastectomy specimens, were excised from patients at Columbia University Medical Center. The tissue specimens were imaged by two spectral domain OCT systems at different wavelengths: a home-built ultra-high resolution (UHR) OCT system at 800 nm (measured as 2.72 μm axial and 5.52 μm lateral) and a commercial OCT system at 1,300 nm with standard resolution (measured as 6.5 μm axial and 15 μm lateral), and their imaging performances were analyzed qualitatively. Using regional features derived from OCT images produced by the two systems, we developed an automated classification algorithm based on relevance vector machine (RVM) to differentiate hollow-structured adipose tissue against solid tissue. We further developed B-scan based features for RVM to classify invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) against normal fibrous stroma tissue among OCT datasets produced by the two systems. For adipose classification, 32 UHR OCT B-scans from 9 normal specimens, and 28 standard OCT B-scans from 6 normal and 4 IDC specimens were employed. For IDC classification, 152 UHR OCT B-scans from 6 normal and 13 IDC specimens, and 104 standard OCT B-scans from 5 normal and 8 IDC specimens were employed. RESULTS: We have demonstrated that UHR OCT images can produce images with better feature delineation compared with images produced by 1,300 nm OCT system. UHR OCT images of a variety of tissue types found in human breast tissue were presented. With a limited number of datasets, we showed that both OCT systems can achieve a good accuracy in identifying adipose tissue. Classification in UHR OCT images achieved higher sensitivity (94%) and specificity (93%) of adipose tissue than the sensitivity (91%) and specificity (76%) in 1,300 nm OCT images. In IDC classification, similarly, we achieved better results with UHR OCT images, featured an overall accuracy of 84%, sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 71% in this preliminary study. CONCLUSION: In this study, we provided UHR OCT images of different normal and malignant breast tissue types, and qualitatively and quantitatively studied the texture and optical features from OCT images of human breast tissue at different resolutions. We developed an automated approach to differentiate adipose tissue, fibrous stroma, and IDC within human breast tissues. Our work may open the door toward automatic intraoperative OCT evaluation of early-stage breast cancer. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:258-269, 2017.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, and recognized as the third leading cause of mortality in women. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables three dimensional visualization of biological tissue with micrometer level resolution at high speed, and can play an important role in early diagnosis and treatment guidance of breast cancer. In particular, ultra-high resolution (UHR) OCT provides images with better histological correlation. This paper compared UHR OCT performance with standard OCT in breast cancer imaging qualitatively and quantitatively. Automatic tissue classification algorithms were used to automatically detect invasive ductal carcinoma in ex vivo human breast tissue. STUDY DESIGN/ MATERIALS AND METHODS:Human breast tissues, including non-neoplastic/normal tissues from breast reduction and tumor samples from mastectomy specimens, were excised from patients at Columbia University Medical Center. The tissue specimens were imaged by two spectral domain OCT systems at different wavelengths: a home-built ultra-high resolution (UHR) OCT system at 800 nm (measured as 2.72 μm axial and 5.52 μm lateral) and a commercial OCT system at 1,300 nm with standard resolution (measured as 6.5 μm axial and 15 μm lateral), and their imaging performances were analyzed qualitatively. Using regional features derived from OCT images produced by the two systems, we developed an automated classification algorithm based on relevance vector machine (RVM) to differentiate hollow-structured adipose tissue against solid tissue. We further developed B-scan based features for RVM to classify invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) against normal fibrous stroma tissue among OCT datasets produced by the two systems. For adipose classification, 32 UHR OCT B-scans from 9 normal specimens, and 28 standard OCT B-scans from 6 normal and 4 IDC specimens were employed. For IDC classification, 152 UHR OCT B-scans from 6 normal and 13 IDC specimens, and 104 standard OCT B-scans from 5 normal and 8 IDC specimens were employed. RESULTS: We have demonstrated that UHR OCT images can produce images with better feature delineation compared with images produced by 1,300 nm OCT system. UHR OCT images of a variety of tissue types found in human breast tissue were presented. With a limited number of datasets, we showed that both OCT systems can achieve a good accuracy in identifying adipose tissue. Classification in UHR OCT images achieved higher sensitivity (94%) and specificity (93%) of adipose tissue than the sensitivity (91%) and specificity (76%) in 1,300 nm OCT images. In IDC classification, similarly, we achieved better results with UHR OCT images, featured an overall accuracy of 84%, sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 71% in this preliminary study. CONCLUSION: In this study, we provided UHR OCT images of different normal and malignant breast tissue types, and qualitatively and quantitatively studied the texture and optical features from OCT images of human breast tissue at different resolutions. We developed an automated approach to differentiate adipose tissue, fibrous stroma, and IDC within human breast tissues. Our work may open the door toward automatic intraoperative OCT evaluation of early-stage breast cancer. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:258-269, 2017.
Authors: Kelsey M Kennedy; Robert A McLaughlin; Brendan F Kennedy; Alan Tien; Bruce Latham; Christobel M Saunders; David D Sampson Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Sarah J Erickson-Bhatt; Ryan M Nolan; Nathan D Shemonski; Steven G Adie; Jeffrey Putney; Donald Darga; Daniel T McCormick; Andrew J Cittadine; Adam M Zysk; Marina Marjanovic; Eric J Chaney; Guillermo L Monroy; Fredrick A South; Kimberly A Cradock; Z George Liu; Magesh Sundaram; Partha S Ray; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Adam M Zysk; Kai Chen; Edward Gabrielson; Lorraine Tafra; Evelyn A May Gonzalez; Joseph K Canner; Eric B Schneider; Andrew J Cittadine; P Scott Carney; Stephen A Boppart; Kimiko Tsuchiya; Kristen Sawyer; Lisa K Jacobs Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Paul J Tadrous; Jan Siegel; Paul M W French; Sami Shousha; El-Nasir Lalani; Gordon W H Stamp Journal: J Pathol Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Brian D Goldberg; Nicusor V Iftimia; Jason E Bressner; Martha B Pitman; Elkan Halpern; Brett E Bouma; Guillermo J Tearney Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Ken Y Foo; Kyle Newman; Qi Fang; Peijun Gong; Hina M Ismail; Devina D Lakhiani; Renate Zilkens; Benjamin F Dessauvagie; Bruce Latham; Christobel M Saunders; Lixin Chin; Brendan F Kennedy Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 3.562
Authors: Scarlet Nazarian; Ioannis Gkouzionis; Michal Kawka; Marta Jamroziak; Josephine Lloyd; Ara Darzi; Nisha Patel; Daniel S Elson; Christopher J Peters Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2022-09-07 Impact factor: 16.681
Authors: Wes M Allen; Kelsey M Kennedy; Qi Fang; Lixin Chin; Andrea Curatolo; Lucinda Watts; Renate Zilkens; Synn Lynn Chin; Benjamin F Dessauvagie; Bruce Latham; Christobel M Saunders; Brendan F Kennedy Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Labrinus van Manen; Jouke Dijkstra; Claude Boccara; Emilie Benoit; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Michalina J Gora; J Sven D Mieog Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Ekaterina V Gubarkova; Elena B Kiseleva; Marina A Sirotkina; Dmitry A Vorontsov; Ksenia A Achkasova; Sergey S Kuznetsov; Konstantin S Yashin; Aleksander L Matveyev; Aleksander A Sovetsky; Lev A Matveev; Anton A Plekhanov; Alexey Y Vorontsov; Vladimir Y Zaitsev; Natalia D Gladkova Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2020-11-24
Authors: Carolina Fabelo; Laura E Selmic; Pin-Cheh Huang; Jonathan P Samuelson; Jennifer K Reagan; Alexandra Kalamaras; Vincent Wavreille; Guillermo L Monroy; Marina Marjanovic; Stephen A Boppart Journal: Vet Comp Oncol Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 2.613
Authors: Benjamin R Ecclestone; Zohreh Hosseinaee; Nima Abbasi; Kevan Bell; Deepak Dinakaran; John R Mackey; Parsin Haji Reza Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 4.379