PURPOSE: Esophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer worldwide. Esophageal resection with gastric pull-up is a potentially curative therapeutic option. After this procedure, the specimen is examined by the pathologist to confirm complete removal of the cancer. An intraoperative analysis of the resectate would be less time-consuming and therefore improve patient safety. METHODS: Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) is a relatively new modality, which has shown promising results for the detection of tumors. Automatic approaches could support the surgeon in the visualization of tumor margins. Therefore, we evaluated four supervised classification algorithms: random forest, support vector machines (SVM), multilayer perceptron, and k-nearest neighbors to differentiate malignant from healthy tissue based on HSI recordings of esophago-gastric resectates in 11 patients. RESULTS: The best performances were obtained with a cancerous tissue detection of 63% sensitivity and 69% specificity with the SVM. In a leave-one patient-out cross-validation, the classification showed larger performance differences according to the patient data used. In less than 1 s, data classification and visualization was shown. CONCLUSION: In this work, we successfully tested several classification algorithms for the automatic detection of esophageal carcinoma in resected tissue. A larger data set and a combination of several methods would probably increase the performance. Moreover, the implementation of software tools for intraoperative tumor boundary visualization will further support the surgeon during oncologic operations.
PURPOSE:Esophageal carcinoma is the eighth most common cancer worldwide. Esophageal resection with gastric pull-up is a potentially curative therapeutic option. After this procedure, the specimen is examined by the pathologist to confirm complete removal of the cancer. An intraoperative analysis of the resectate would be less time-consuming and therefore improve patient safety. METHODS: Hyperspectral imaging (HSI) is a relatively new modality, which has shown promising results for the detection of tumors. Automatic approaches could support the surgeon in the visualization of tumor margins. Therefore, we evaluated four supervised classification algorithms: random forest, support vector machines (SVM), multilayer perceptron, and k-nearest neighbors to differentiate malignant from healthy tissue based on HSI recordings of esophago-gastric resectates in 11 patients. RESULTS: The best performances were obtained with a cancerous tissue detection of 63% sensitivity and 69% specificity with the SVM. In a leave-one patient-out cross-validation, the classification showed larger performance differences according to the patient data used. In less than 1 s, data classification and visualization was shown. CONCLUSION: In this work, we successfully tested several classification algorithms for the automatic detection of esophageal carcinoma in resected tissue. A larger data set and a combination of several methods would probably increase the performance. Moreover, the implementation of software tools for intraoperative tumor boundary visualization will further support the surgeon during oncologic operations.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer detection; Hyperspectral imaging (HSI); Machine learning; Visceral surgery
Authors: Corinne D Nawn; Brian E Souhan; Robert Carter; Caitlin Kneapler; Nicholas Fell; Jing Yong Ye Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Martin Hohmann; R Kanawade; F Klämpfl; A Douplik; J Mudter; M F Neurath; H Albrecht Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 3.207
Authors: Axel Kulcke; Amadeus Holmer; Philip Wahl; Frank Siemers; Thomas Wild; Georg Daeschlein Journal: Biomed Tech (Berl) Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 1.411
Authors: Hamed Akbari; Luma V Halig; David M Schuster; Adeboye Osunkoya; Viraj Master; Peter T Nieh; Georgia Z Chen; Baowei Fei Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Samuel Ortega; Himar Fabelo; Rafael Camacho; María de la Luz Plaza; Gustavo M Callicó; Roberto Sarmiento Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Anna-Marie Hosking; Brandon J Coakley; Dorothy Chang; Faezeh Talebi-Liasi; Samantha Lish; Sung Won Lee; Amanda M Zong; Ian Moore; James Browning; Steven L Jacques; James G Krueger; Kristen M Kelly; Kenneth G Linden; Daniel S Gareau Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Boris Jansen-Winkeln; Jonathan P Takoh; Claire Chalopin; Marianne Maktabi; Orestis Lyros; Robert Sucher; Albrecht Hoffmeister; Niels Teich; Hannes Köhler; Ines Gockel Journal: Visc Med Date: 2021-04-13
Authors: Alexander Studier-Fischer; Silvia Seidlitz; Jan Sellner; Berkin Özdemir; Manuel Wiesenfarth; Leonardo Ayala; Jan Odenthal; Samuel Knödler; Karl Friedrich Kowalewski; Caelan Max Haney; Isabella Camplisson; Maximilian Dietrich; Karsten Schmidt; Gabriel Alexander Salg; Hannes Götz Kenngott; Tim Julian Adler; Nicholas Schreck; Annette Kopp-Schneider; Klaus Maier-Hein; Lena Maier-Hein; Beat Peter Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Mark Witteveen; Hendricus J C M Sterenborg; Ton G van Leeuwen; Maurice C G Aalders; Theo J M Ruers; Anouk L Post Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2022-10 Impact factor: 3.758
Authors: Sharline M van Vliet-Pérez; Nick J van de Berg; Francesca Manni; Marco Lai; Lucia Rijstenberg; Benno H W Hendriks; Jenny Dankelman; Patricia C Ewing-Graham; Gatske M Nieuwenhuyzen-de Boer; Heleen J van Beekhuizen Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 6.639