4.6 Article

Novel quantitative analysis of autofluorescence images for oral cancer screening

Journal

ORAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 68, Issue -, Pages 20-26

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.03.003

Keywords

Autofluorescence; VELscope (R); Quantitative analysis; Oral cancer

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taiwan of Taiwan [MOHW105-TDU-B-212-134007, MOHW105-TDU-B-212-112016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: VELscope (R) was developed to inspect oral mucosa autofluorescence. However, its accuracy is heavily dependent on the examining physician's experience. This study was aimed toward the development of a novel quantitative analysis of autofluorescence images for oral cancer screening. Materials and methods: Patients with either oral cancer or precancerous lesions and a control group with normal oral mucosa were enrolled in this study. White light images and VELscope (R) autofluorescence images of the lesions were taken with a digital camera. The lesion in the image was chosen as the region of interest (ROI). The average intensity and heterogeneity of the ROI were calculated. A quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA) was utilized to compute boundaries based on sensitivity and specificity. Results: 47 oral cancer lesions, 54 precancerous lesions, and 39 normal oral mucosae controls were analyzed. A boundary of specificity of 0.923 and a sensitivity of 0.979 between the oral cancer lesions and normal oral mucosae were validated. The oral cancer and precancerous lesions could also be differentiated from normal oral mucosae with a specificity of 0.923 and a sensitivity of 0.970. Conclusion: The novel quantitative analysis of the intensity and heterogeneity of VELscope (R) autofluorescence images used in this study in combination with a QDA classifier can be used to differentiate oral cancer and precancerous lesions from normal oral mucosae. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available