| Literature DB >> 35154448 |
Qiuqing Zheng1, Chunyi Lin2, Dong Xu1, Huicheng Zhao1, Mei Song1, Di Ou1, Le Shi1.
Abstract
Background: The level of cervical cancer screening in underdeveloped countries is far behind that of developed countries mostly because current cervical cancer screening methods are difficult to implement in underdeveloped countries. The use of non-invasive, repeatable, and low-cost ultrasound needs to be accessed.Entities:
Keywords: cervical cancer; radio frequency time series signal; tissue typing; ultrasound
Year: 2022 PMID: 35154448 PMCID: PMC8824887 DOI: 10.7150/jca.60413
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Operation interface for extracting RF time series parameters from cervical tissue. The four images represent the diagrams of the extraction operation interface of the RF time series parameters of different pathological types of cervical tissue. The ultrasound image of different cervical tissues is on the left of each interface; the blue line outlines the cervical cancer lesion area, and the red line outlines the ROI. The middle area of the interface is the respective RF time series spectrogram. The respective 14 RF time series parameter values are shown on the right side of the interface diagram. The pathological types of the four ROIs were as follows: (A) poorly differentiated cervical squamous cell carcinoma, (B) middle-low differentiated cervical squamous cell carcinoma, (C) middle differentiated cervical squamous cell carcinoma, (D) normal cervix with a cytology negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy.
Pathological Classifications of 106 subjects
| Classification | Number of cases |
|---|---|
| Low differentiated cervical SCC | 28 |
| Middle-low differentiated cervical SCC | 17 |
| Middle differentiated cervical SCC | 24 |
| NILM | 37 |
Abbreviations: SCC, squamous cell carcinoma; NILM, negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy.
Figure 2Different types of cervical pathology. The four images corresponded to Fig. 1, and the pathological results were as follows: (A) histopathology of low differentiated cervical squamous cell carcinoma, (B) histopathology of middle-low differentiated cervical squamous cell carcinoma, (C) histopathology of middle differentiated cervical squamous cell carcinoma, (D) cytology negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy. Histology was diagnosed by hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) staining (magnification, x400) and cytology by Papanicolaou staining (magnification, x400).
Comparison of Ultrasound RF Time Series Parameters between cervical squamous cell carcinoma and normal cervical tissues
| Parameter | Average value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor | Normal | ||
| Higuchi FD | 1.71±0.30 | 1.28±0.30 | <0.001* |
| SFD | 1.84±0.28 | 1.46±0.39 | <0.001* |
| Slope | -0.32±0.08 | -0.26±0.05 | <0.001* |
| Intercept | 0.48±0.02 | 0.46±0.02 | <0.001* |
| Midbandfit | 0.35±0.03 | 0.33±0.03 | 0.022* |
| S1 | 15.66±1.01 | 13.57±1.69 | <0.001* |
| S2 | 10.12±0.69 | 9.32±1.27 | 0.001* |
| S3 | 9.44±1.12 | 8.66±1.09 | <0.001* |
| S4 | 7.67±1.01 | 6.43±0.65 | <0.001* |
| Fuzzy entropy | 1.70±0.29 | 1.83±0.20 | 0.130 |
| Peak | 1989.9±166.8 | 2024.69±187.5 | 0.326 |
| Kurtosis | 0.347±0.03 | 0.350±0.02 | 0.618 |
| Cross Zero Count | 3.77±0.31 | 3.81±0.29 | 0.442 |
| Cross Zero Std | 1.26±0.17 | 1.33±0.14 | 0.204 |
P < 0.05 indicates statistical significance;
Abbreviations: Higuchi FD, Higuchi fractal dimension; SFD, Structure function method fractal dimension; Cross Zero Std, Cross Zero Standard deviation.
Comparison of Ultrasound RF Time Series Parameters among Different Differentiated Cervical Squamous Cell Carcinoma tissues
| Parameter | Cervical squamous cell carcinoma | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low differentiated carcinoma | Middle-low differentiated carcinoma | Middle differentiated carcinoma | |||
| Higuchi FD | 1.861±0.31 | 1.87±0.39 | 1.796±0.19 | 0.376 | 0.688 |
| SFD | 1.681±0.32 | 1.707±0.39 | 1.754±0.939 | 0.468 | 0.628 |
| Slope | -0.325±0.03 | -0.320±0.08 | -0.302±0.09 | 0.577 | 0.564 |
| Intercept | 0.483±0.18 | 0.481±0.19 | 0.478±0.18 | 0.369 | 0.693 |
| Midbandfit | 0.353±0.03 | 0.360±0.03 | 0.342±0.03 | 1.942 | 0.151 |
| S1 | 15.621±0.99 | 15.837±1.19 | 15.587±0.93 | 0.337 | 0.715 |
| S2 | 10.246±0.63 | 10.183±0.49 | 9.589±0.84 | 1.129 | 0.33 |
| S3 | 9.689±0.73 | 8.919±1.34 | 9.52±1.25 | 2.694 | 0.075 |
| S4 | 7.747±0.87 | 7.623±1.08 | 7.602±1.01 | 0.148 | 0.862 |
| Fuzzy entropy | 1.763±0.23 | 1.625±0.29 | 1.616±0.32 | 1.817 | 0.171 |
| Peak | 1990.1±199.8 | 2065.6±195.8 | 1935.9±185.3 | 2.602 | 0.074 |
| Kurtosis | 0.352±0.03 | 0.345±0.03 | 0.342±0.03 | 0.62 | 0.541 |
| Cross Zero Count | 3.720±0.33 | 3.739±0.31 | 3.822±0.30 | 0.808 | 0.45 |
| Cross Zero Std | 1.279±0.17 | 1.2321±0.18 | 1.253±0.17 | 0.418 | 0.66 |
P < 0.05 indicates statistical significance;
Abbreviations: Higuchi FD, Higuchi fractal dimension; SFD, Structure function method fractal dimension; Cross Zero Std, Cross Zero Standard deviation.