| Literature DB >> 35326577 |
Sharline M van Vliet-Pérez1,2, Nick J van de Berg1,3, Francesca Manni4, Marco Lai4, Lucia Rijstenberg5, Benno H W Hendriks1, Jenny Dankelman1, Patricia C Ewing-Graham5, Gatske M Nieuwenhuyzen-de Boer3,6, Heleen J van Beekhuizen3.
Abstract
The most important prognostic factor for the survival of advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the completeness of cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Therefore, an intraoperative technique to detect microscopic tumors would be of great value. The aim of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of near-infrared hyperspectral imaging (HSI) for EOC detection in ex vivo tissue samples. Images were collected during CRS in 11 patients in the wavelength range of 665-975 nm, and processed by calibration, normalization, and noise filtering. A linear support vector machine (SVM) was employed to classify healthy and tumorous tissue (defined as >50% tumor cells). Classifier performance was evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation. Images of 26 tissue samples from 10 patients were included, containing 26,446 data points that were matched to histopathology. Tumorous tissue could be classified with an area under the curve of 0.83, a sensitivity of 0.81, a specificity of 0.70, and Matthew's correlation coefficient of 0.41. This study paves the way to in vivo and intraoperative use of HSI during CRS. Hyperspectral imaging can scan a whole tissue surface in a fast and non-contact way. Our pilot study demonstrates that HSI and SVM learning can be used to discriminate EOC from surrounding tissue.Entities:
Keywords: classification; cytoreduction surgical procedure; hyperspectral imaging; ovarian epithelial carcinoma; support vector machine
Year: 2022 PMID: 35326577 PMCID: PMC8946803 DOI: 10.3390/cancers14061422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Hyperspectral data acquisition system, showing: 1. Vertical rigid stage; 2. Hyperspectral camera; 3. Halogen light source; 4. Plateau.
Figure 2Workflow: (a) The hyperspectral (HS) images from the mosaic 5 × 5 hyperspectral camera were acquired after cytoreduction. (b) HS images were pre-processed by calibration, min-max normalization and noise filtering and transformed. (c) The digitized pathological images were annotated. (d) The annotated images were transformed. Tumor tissue was filled with the color bordeaux and the non-tumor tissue was filled with the color blue. (e) Tumor tissue and non-tumor tissue were selected via hue, saturation and value (HSV) color thresholding to make masks. (f) Selection of the tumor tissue and non-tumor tissue was made with the mask. (g) The HS images were multiplied by the mask to obtain tumor tissue and non-tumor tissue. (h) The HS images were patched into a grid of 20 × 20 pixels and features were extracted.
Figure 3Method for training and classifying the tumor and non-tumor tissue.
Patient characteristics.
| Patient Number | Primary Location | Histology | Grade | FIGO Stage | Procedure | Tissue Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IIIC | PDS a | A: Ovarian |
| 2 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IV | IDS b | A: Mesenterium |
| 3 | Ovarian | Serous | 1/3 | IV | IDS b | A: Omentum |
| 4 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IV | IDS b | A: Omentum |
| 5 | Mucinous | 3 | IV | PDS a | A: Omentum | |
| 6 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IIIC | IDS b | A: Ovarian |
| 7 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IV | IDS b | A: Omentum |
| 8 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IIIC | IDS b | A: Omentum |
| 9 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IV | IDS b | A: Ovarian |
| 10 | Ovarian | Serous | 3 | IV | IDS b | A: Ovarian |
| 11 | Ovarian | Serous | 1 | IV | PDS a | A: Omentum |
a—PDS: Primary debulking surgery (chemo-naïve); b—IDS: Interval debulking surgery (received prior to chemotherapy).
Amount of tumor and non-tumor data points per patient.
| Patient | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 7819 | 123 | 1678 | 3134 | 7102 | 1236 | 1663 | 1564 | 1382 | 745 |
| Tumor | 5065 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1012 | 440 | 0 | 31 | 80 | 688 |
| Non-tumor | 2754 | 123 | 1678 | 3134 | 6090 | 796 | 1663 | 1533 | 1302 | 57 |
Figure 4Intensity values (median and interquartile range (IQR)) as a function of wavelength for tumorous and non-tumorous tissues.
Figure 5Intensity values (median) as a function of wavelength for various non-tumorous tissues.
Figure 6Boxplots of the first 6 principal components of prognostic spectrum features.
Classification result of leave-one-out cross-validation.
| Patient | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV a. | NPV b. | AUC c. | MCC d. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.91 | 0.55 | 0.79 | 0.77 | 0.76 | 0.51 |
| 2 | - | 0.00 | 0 * | - | - | - |
| 3 | - | 0.55 | 0 * | 1.00 * | - | - |
| 4 | - | 0.99 | 0 * | 1.00 * | - | - |
| 6 | 0.55 | 0.87 | 0.42 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.38 |
| 7 | 0.66 | 0.79 | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.78 | 0.45 |
| 8 | - | 1.00 | 0 * | 1.00 * | ||
| 9 | 0.95 | 0.67 | 0.05 | 1.00 | 0.84 | 0.18 |
| 10 | 0.85 | 0.88 | 0.30 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.46 |
| 11 | 0.91 | 0.72 | 0.98 | 0.40 | 0.89 | 0.49 |
| Mean | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 0.41 |
a—PPV: Positive predictive value; b—NPV: Negative predictive value; c—AUC: Area under the curve; d—MCC: Matthew’s correlation coefficient; * Samples without tumor tissue. PPV and NPV were not included in calculation of the mean.
Figure 7Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the six patients for whom samples contained both tumorous and non-tumorous tissues.