4.5 Article

Evaluation of quantitative image analysis criteria for the high-resolution microendoscopic detection of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.3406386

Keywords

endoscopy; biomedical optics; microscopy

Funding

  1. NIH [1RO1EB007594-01, 1RO1CA103830-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Early detection of neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus is essential to improve outcomes. The aim of this ex vivo study was to evaluate the ability of high-resolution microendoscopic imaging and quantitative image analysis to identify neoplastic lesions in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Nine patients with pathologically confirmed Barrett's esophagus underwent endoscopic examination with biopsies or endoscopic mucosa! resection. Resected fresh tissue was imaged with fiber bundle microendoscopy; images were analyzed by visual interpretation or by quantitative image analysis to predict whether the imaged sites were non-neoplastic or neoplastic. The best performing pair of quantitative features were chosen based on their ability to correctly classify the data into the two groups. Predictions were compared to the gold standard of histopathology. Subjective analysis of the images by expert clinicians achieved average sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 61%, respectively. The best performing quantitative classification algorithm relied on two image textural features and achieved a sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 85%, respectively. This ex vivo pilot trial demonstrates that quantitative analysis of images obtained with a simple microendoscope system can distinguish neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus with good sensitivity and specificity when compared to histopathology and to subjective image interpretation. (C) 2010 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. [DOI: 10.1117/1.3406386]

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available