| Literature DB >> 29739969 |
Fan Dong1,2,3,4,5, Chuansibo Tao6, Ji Wu7, Ying Su7, Yuguang Wang1,2,3,4,5, Yong Wang1,2,3,4,5, Chuanbin Guo8,9, Peijun Lyu10,11,12,13,14.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a non-radiating, noninvasive infrared (IR) thermal imaging system in the detection of cervical lymph node metastasis from oral cavity cancer. In this prospective clinical trial, a total of 90 oral cavity cancer patients suspected of having cervical lymph node metastasis underwent IR imaging of the neck prior to neck dissection. Analysis of the IR images was performed by two methods: manual qualitative analysis and automatic analysis by an entropy-gradient support vector machine (EGSVM). The efficacies of the EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) were compared by using the Noninferiority Testing. Compared with manual qualitative analysis, the EGSVM-based automatic analysis had a higher sensitivity (84.8% vs. 71.7%), specificity (77.3% vs. 72.7%), accuracy (81.1% vs. 72.2%), positive predictive value (79.6% vs. 73.3%) and negative predictive value (82.9% vs. 71.1%). The EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system was noninferior to contrast-enhanced CT (P < 0.05). The EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system showed a trend of higher sensitivity, whereas contrast-enhanced CT showed a trend of higher specificity. The EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system is a promising non-radiating, noninvasive tool for the detection of lymph node metastasis from oral cavity cancer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29739969 PMCID: PMC5940875 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-24195-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Timeline of the study process.
Patient characteristics.
| Title | Subtitle | Number | Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Patients | 90 | ||
| Age (years) | 58.2 ± 12.3 | ||
| Gender | Male | 60 | 66.7% |
| Female | 30 | 33.3% | |
| Clinical Examination | cN0 | 44 | 48.9% |
| cN+ | 46 | 51.1% | |
|
| |||
| ICD10-C00 | Lip | 1 | 1.1% |
| ICD10-C01 | Base of Tongue | 7 | 7.8% |
| ICD10-C02 | Tongue | 31 | 34.5% |
| ICD10-C03 | Gum | 24 | 26.7% |
| ICD10-C04 | Floor of Mouth | 7 | 7.8% |
| ICD10-C05 | Palate | 1 | 1.1% |
| ICD10-C06.0 | Buccal Mucosa | 11 | 12.2% |
| ICD10-C06.2 | Retromolar Area | 4 | 4.4% |
| ICD10-C10 | Oropharynx | 4 | 4.4% |
| Historical Type | |||
| Squamous Cell Carcinoma | 77 | 85.6% | |
| Mucosal Malignant Melanoma | 6 | 6.7% | |
| Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma | 3 | 3.3% | |
| Basal Cell Adenocarcinoma | 1 | 1.1% | |
| Adenosquamous Cell Carcinoma | 1 | 1.1% | |
| Sarcomatoid Carcinoma | 1 | 1.1% | |
| Clear Cell Carcinoma | 1 | 1.1% | |
Figure 2Manual qualitative analysis of IR imaging. (a) An asymmetric thermographic pattern that includes an elevated surface temperature and a vascular pattern; (b) Increased vascular density with a tortuous vascular morphologic pattern; (c) A unilateral dilated vascular image; (d) A surface temperature difference of over 1 °C.
Figure 3Structure of the EGSVM system. (a) The image in the black box is the cropped image from raw images, which is converted into a grayscale image; (b) The expanding process of win and feature extraction. The win expands from win1 to win. For win, the entropy of and are used in the feature extraction process; (c) The red circles and blue squares represent high-dimensional feature vectors; (d) The structure of automatic analysis system for new raw images.
Distribution of patient cases by IR features.
| IR Features | No. of Cases | No. of Metastatic Cases | Prevalence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abnormal vascular morphology | 29 | 21 | 72.4 |
| Unilateral dilated vessel | 10 | 7 | 70.0 |
| Temperature difference over 1 °C | 10 | 7 | 70.0 |
| Focal bulge | 3 | 3 | 100.0 |
Prevalence = number of metastatic cases divided by number of cases with the given IR features.
Performance of manual and automatic analysis of IR imaging.
| Parameters | Manual qualitative analysis | Automatic analysis by EGSVM |
|---|---|---|
| No. of true positive | 33 | 39 |
| No. of false positive | 12 | 10 |
| No. of true negative | 32 | 34 |
| No. of false negative | 13 | 7 |
| Sensitivity (%) | 71.7 (58.7,84.8) | 84.8 (74.4,95.2) |
| Specificity (%) | 72.7 (59.6,85.9) | 77.3 (64.9,89.7) |
| Accuracy (%) | 72.2 (63.0,81.5) | 81.1 (73.0,89.2) |
| PPV (%) | 73.3 (60.4,86.3) | 79.6 (68.3,90.9) |
| NPV (%) | 71.1 (57.9,84.4) | 82.9 (71.4,94.4) |
Data in parentheses are 95% CIs; Sensitivity = true positive/(true positive + false negative); Specificity = true negative/(true negative + false positive); Accuracy = (true positive + true negative)/(true positive + true negative + false positive + false negative); PPV = true positive/(true positive + false positive); NPV = true negative/(true negative + false negative).
Comparison of diagnostic efficacies between contrast-enhanced CT and the EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system.
| No. of patients with metastasis | No. of patients without metastasis | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT+ | CT− | Total | CT+ | CT− | Total | |
| EGSVM+ | 29 | 10 | 39 | 1 | 9 | 10 |
| EGSVM− | 5 | 2 | 7 | 6 | 28 | 34 |
| Total | 34 | 12 | 46 | 7 | 37 | 44 |
| Group | Sen (%) | Spe (%) | Accuracy (%) | Youden’s index | LR+ | LR− |
| CT | 73.9 (61.2, 86.6) | 84.1 (73.3, 94.9) | 78.9 (70.5, 87.3) | 0.580 | 4.6478 | 0.3103 |
| EGSVM | 84.8 (74.4, 95.2) | 77.3 (64.9, 89.7) | 81.1 (73.0, 89.2) | 0.621 | 3.7357 | 0.1966 |
Data in parentheses are 95% CIs; CT+ = positive at contrast-enhanced CT; CT− = negative at contrast-enhanced CT; EGSVM+ = positive at EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system; EGSVM− = negative at EGSVM-based infrared thermal imaging system; Sen = sensitivity; Spe = specificity; LR+ = positive likelihood ratio; LR− = negative likelihood ratio.
Figure 4Representative case correctly confirmed with both IR imaging and contrast-enhanced CT. (a) Elevated surface temperature and increased vascular density on the right side using IR imaging; (b) Metastatic lymph node in contrast-enhanced CT; (c) Microscopic appearance of metastatic lymph nodes (hematoxylin and eosin staining, original magnification ×200).