4.6 Article

Rapid infrared mapping for highly accurate automated histology in Barrett's oesophagus

期刊

ANALYST
卷 142, 期 8, 页码 1227-1234

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6an01871h

关键词

-

资金

  1. Royal College of Surgeons of England
  2. European Commission [317803]
  3. NIHR (National Institute for Health Research) Exeter Clinical Research Facility

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Barrett's oesophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition that can progress to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic surveillance aims to identify potential progression at an early, treatable stage, but generates large numbers of tissue biopsies. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) mapping was used to develop an automated histology tool for detection of BE and Barrett's neoplasia in tissue biopsies. 22 oesophageal tissue samples were collected from 19 patients. Contiguous frozen tissue sections were taken for pathology review and FTIR imaging. 45 mid-IR images were measured on an Agilent 620 FTIR microscope with an Agilent 670 spectrometer. Each image covering a 140 mu m x 140 mu m region was measured in 5 minutes, using a 1.1 mu m(2) pixel size and 64 scans per pixel. Principal component fed linear discriminant analysis was used to build classification models based on spectral differences, which were then tested using leave-one-sample-out cross validation. Key biochemical differences were identified by their spectral signatures: high glycogen content was seen in normal squamous (NSQ) tissue, high glycoprotein content was observed in glandular BE tissue, and high DNA content in dysplasia/adenocarcinoma samples. Classification of normal squamous samples versus 'abnormal' samples (any stage of Barrett's) was performed with 100% sensitivity and specificity. Neoplastic Barrett's (dysplasia or adenocarcinoma) was identified with 95.6% sensitivity and 86.4% specificity. Highly accurate pathology classification can be achieved with FTIR measurement of frozen tissue sections in a clinically applicable timeframe.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据