4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Automated differentiation between meningioma and healthy brain tissue based on optical coherence tomography ex vivo images using texture features

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
Volume 23, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.23.7.071205

Keywords

optical coherence tomography; neurosurgery; texture analysis; pattern recognition; machine learning

Funding

  1. Stiftung Rheinisch-Westfalischer Technischer Uberwachungsverein (RWTUV) [S189/10024/2015, S189/10025/2015]
  2. RUB Research School

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brain tissue analysis is highly desired in neurosurgery, such as tumor resection. To guarantee best life quality afterward, exact navigation within the brain during the surgery is essential. So far, no method has been established that perfectly fulfills this need. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a promising three-dimensional imaging tool to support neurosurgical resections. We perform a preliminary study toward in vivo brain tumor removal assistance by investigating meningioma, healthy white, and healthy gray matter. For that purpose, we utilized a commercially available OCT device (Thorlabs Callisto) and measured eight samples of meningioma, three samples of healthy white, and two samples of healthy gray matter ex vivo directly after removal. Structural variations of different tissue types, especially meningioma, can already be seen in the raw OCT images. Nevertheless, an automated differentiation approach is desired, so that neurosurgical guidance can be delivered without a-priori knowledge of the surgeon. Therefore, we employ different algorithms to extract texture features and apply pattern recognition methods for their classification. With these postprocessing steps, an accuracy of nearly 98% was found. (c) 2018 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)

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