Preclinical evaluation of nuclear morphometry and tissue topology for breast carcinoma detection and margin assessment.
Prevention and early detection of breast cancer are the major prophylactic measures taken to reduce the breast cancer related mortality and morbidity. Clinical management of breast cancer largely relies on the efficacy of the breast-conserving surgeries and the subsequent radiation therapy. A key problem that limits the success of these surgeries is the lack of accurate, real-time knowledge about the positive tumor margins in the surgically excised tumors in the operating room. This leads to tumor recurrence and, hence, the need for repeated surgeries. Current intraoperative techniques such as frozen section pathology or touch imprint cytology severely suffer from poor sampling and non-optimal detection sensitivity. Even though histopathology analysis can provide information on positive tumor margins post-operatively (~2-3 days), this information is of no immediate utility in the operating rooms. In this article, we propose a novel image analysis method for tumor margin assessment based on nuclear morphometry and tissue topology and demonstrate its high sensitivity/specificity in preclinical animal model of breast carcinoma. The method relies on imaging nuclear-specific fluorescence in the excised surgical specimen and on extracting nuclear morphometric parameters (size, number, and area fraction) from the spatial distribution of the observed fluorescence in the tissue. We also report the utility of tissue topology in tumor margin assessment by measuring the fractal dimension in the same set of images. By a systematic analysis of multiple breast tissues specimens, we show here that the proposed method is not only accurate (~97% sensitivity and 96% specificity) in thin sections, but also in three-dimensional (3D) thick tissues that mimic the realistic lumpectomy specimens. Our data clearly precludes the utility of nuclear size as a reliable diagnostic criterion for tumor margin assessment. On the other hand, nuclear area fraction addresses this issue very effectively since it is a combination of both nuclear size and count in any given region of the analyzed image, and thus yields high sensitivity and specificity (~97%) in tumor detection. This is further substantiated by an independent parameter, fractal dimension, based on the tissue topology. Although the basic definition of cancer as an uncontrolled cell growth entails a high nuclear density in tumor regions, a simple but systematic exploration of nuclear distribution in thick tissues by nuclear morphometry and tissue topology as performed in this study has never been carried out, to the best of our knowledge. We discuss the practical aspects of implementing this imaging approach in automated tissue sampling scenario where the accuracy of tumor margin assessment can be significantly increased by scanning the entire surgical specimen rather than sampling only a few sections as in current histopathology analysis.
Nyirenda
Ndeke
N
Metabolic Photonics Laboratory and Minimally Invasive Surgical Technologies Institute, Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 8700 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA.
Farkas
Daniel L
DL
Ramanujan
V Krishnan
VK
D000818:Animals; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology; D045744:Cell Line, Tumor; D053145:Cell Nucleus Size; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008856:Microscopy, Fluorescence; D009368:Neoplasm Transplantation; D051381:Rats; D011916:Rats, Inbred F344; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D046888:Tissue Array Analysis; D014183:Transplantation, Heterologous
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Feb;192(2):379-83
19155397
Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2009 Jun;4(4):331-6
20033580
J Neurosci Methods. 1988 Nov;26(1):75-81
3199849
Am J Surg. 2002 Aug;184(2):89-93
12169349
Acad Radiol. 2007 Aug;14(8):945-50
17659240
Diagn Cytopathol. 2007 Oct;35(10):656-9
17854083
Tumori. 2002 May-Jun;88(3):S10-1
12365369
Ann Surg. 2008 May;247(5):839-42
18438122
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2005;2005:6456-9
17281747
IEEE Trans Image Process. 1993;2(2):259-64
18296214
J Biomed Opt. 2005 Sep-Oct;10(5):051407
16292944
Microcirculation. 1997 Dec;4(4):395-402
9431507
Surgery. 1992 Jun;111(6):656-9
1595061
Cancer. 2002 Aug 1;95(3):470-7
12209738
IEEE Trans Image Process. 2002;11(11):1209-26
18249692
Diagn Mol Pathol. 1996 Sep;5(3):173-80
8866230
J Belge Radiol. 1997 Apr;80(2):85-8
9237420
Radiology. 1988 Jul;168(1):49-58
3289095
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Aug;15(8):2257-62
18484140
J Pathol. 1995 Sep;177(1):103-7
7472773
J Surg Oncol. 2004 Feb;85(2):82-6; discussion 87
14755508
JAMA. 1996 Sep 18;276(11):870-1
8782629
Cytometry A. 2003 Nov;56(1):23-36
14566936
Acad Radiol. 2004 Oct;11(10):1125-38
15530805
BMC Bioinformatics. 2009 Mar 03;10:75
19257905
J Biomed Opt. 2008 May-Jun;13(3):031219
18601543
Comput Biol Med. 2009 Nov;39(11):947-52
19775683
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2009;30(1):85-7
19317265
Am J Surg. 2006 Oct;192(4):538-40
16978970
Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2005 Oct;27(5):284-90
16447821
J Microsc. 2008 Jun;230(Pt 3):329-38
18503658
Br J Surg. 1984 Jun;71(6):454-5
6372938
Singapore Med J. 2007 Jan;48(1):31-3
17245513
Asian J Surg. 2007 Jul;30(3):183-7
17638637
Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 2006;27(6):561-5
17290583