Abstract

We report in this pilot study the diagnostic results of in vivo imaging of patients with ovarian lesions, using a co-registered photoacoustic and ultrasound (PAT/US) system. A total of 39 ovaries from 24 patients were imaged in vivo. PAT functional features, i.e., blood oxygen saturation (sO2) and relative total hemoglobin (rHbT), PAT image features, and PAT spectral features within a region of interest (ROI) in each ovarian tissue were extracted. To select the significant features, a t-test on each feature was performed, and the independent predictors were determined by evaluating correlation between each pair of predictors. To classify the ovarian lesions, we employed a generalized linear model (GLM) and a support vector machine (SVM). We used these classifiers first to distinguish benign/normal lesions from ovaries with invasive epithelial tumors and then to separate normal/benign lesions from all types of ovarian tumors. We developed classifiers once by inclusion of PAT functional features to assess the best diagnostic performance of the classifiers when multiple wavelengths data are available. Second time, we excluded the PAT functional features from the features set to evaluate the best diagnostic performance if only a single wavelength is available. Our results show that using functional features improves the classification performance, especially for distinguishing normal/benign ovarian lesions from all types of tumors. In this case, an area under ROC curve (AUC) of 0.92, 0.93 of testing data was achieved using a GLM and SVM classifier when functional features were included in the feature set while excluding these features resulted in an AUC of 0.89, 0.92, respectively.

© 2019 Optical Society of America under the terms of the OSA Open Access Publishing Agreement

Full Article  |  PDF Article
OSA Recommended Articles
A three-parameter logistic model to characterize ovarian tissue using polarization-sensitive optical coherence tomography

Tianheng Wang, Yi Yang, and Quing Zhu
Biomed. Opt. Express 4(5) 772-777 (2013)

Quantitative multispectral ex vivo optical evaluation of human ovarian tissue using spatial frequency domain imaging

Sreyankar Nandy, Ian S. Hagemann, Matthew A. Powell, Cary Siegel, and Quing Zhu
Biomed. Opt. Express 9(5) 2451-2456 (2018)

Classification of basal cell carcinoma in human skin using machine learning and quantitative features captured by polarization sensitive optical coherence tomography

Tahereh Marvdashti, Lian Duan, Sumaira Z. Aasi, Jean Y. Tang, and Audrey K. Ellerbee Bowden
Biomed. Opt. Express 7(9) 3721-3735 (2016)

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures, 2017, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA (2017)
  2. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
  3. D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Screening for ovarian cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med. 361(2), 170–177 (2009).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. K. R. Lee, F. A. Tavassoli, J. Prat, M. Dietel, D. J. Gersell, and A. I. Karseladze, Surface Epithelial Stromal Tumours: Tumours of the Ovary and Peritoneum. FA. Tavassoli, P. Devilee, IARC Press: Lyon; 117–145 (2003).
  5. N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
    [PubMed]
  6. I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
    [PubMed]
  10. A. Shaaban and M. Rezvani, “Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging,” Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 52(1), 73–93 (2009).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  12. Y. Nakamoto, T. Saga, and S. Fujii, “Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors,” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 15(5), 701–709 (2005).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. L. V. Wang and S. Hu, “Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs,” Science 335(6075), 1458–1462 (2012).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. K. S. Valluru, K. E. Wilson, and J. K. Willmann, “Photoacoustic imaging in oncology: translational preclinical and early clinical experience,” Radiology 280(2), 332–349 (2016).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. A. A. Oraevsky and A. A. Karabutov, Optoacoustic tomography. In: Vo-Dinh T, ed. Biomedical photonics handbook. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC, (2003).
  16. H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
    [Crossref]
  19. B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).
  20. T. Feng, J. E. Perosky, K. M. Kozloff, G. Xu, Q. Cheng, S. Du, J. Yuan, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Characterization of bone microstructure using photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Opt. Express 23(19), 25217–25224 (2015).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. X. Leng, W. Chapman, B. Rao, S. Nandy, R. Chen, R. Rais, I. Gonzalez, Q. Zhou, D. Chatterjee, M. Mutch, and Q. Zhu, “Feasibility of co-registered ultrasound and acoustic-resolution photoacoustic imaging of human colorectal cancer,” Biomed. Opt. Express 9(11), 5159–5172 (2018).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. R. E. Kumon, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Frequency-domain analysis of photoacoustic imaging data from prostate adenocarcinoma tumors in a murine model,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37(5), 834–839 (2011).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610–621 (1973).
    [Crossref]
  26. J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Ann. Intern. Med. 118(3), 201–210 (1993).
    [Crossref] [PubMed]

2018 (2)

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

X. Leng, W. Chapman, B. Rao, S. Nandy, R. Chen, R. Rais, I. Gonzalez, Q. Zhou, D. Chatterjee, M. Mutch, and Q. Zhu, “Feasibility of co-registered ultrasound and acoustic-resolution photoacoustic imaging of human colorectal cancer,” Biomed. Opt. Express 9(11), 5159–5172 (2018).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2017 (1)

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2016 (2)

K. S. Valluru, K. E. Wilson, and J. K. Willmann, “Photoacoustic imaging in oncology: translational preclinical and early clinical experience,” Radiology 280(2), 332–349 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2015 (2)

H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

T. Feng, J. E. Perosky, K. M. Kozloff, G. Xu, Q. Cheng, S. Du, J. Yuan, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Characterization of bone microstructure using photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Opt. Express 23(19), 25217–25224 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2014 (1)

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2012 (2)

L. V. Wang and S. Hu, “Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs,” Science 335(6075), 1458–1462 (2012).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).

2011 (1)

R. E. Kumon, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Frequency-domain analysis of photoacoustic imaging data from prostate adenocarcinoma tumors in a murine model,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37(5), 834–839 (2011).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2009 (2)

D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Screening for ovarian cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med. 361(2), 170–177 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

A. Shaaban and M. Rezvani, “Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging,” Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 52(1), 73–93 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2008 (1)

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2007 (1)

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

2005 (2)

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Y. Nakamoto, T. Saga, and S. Fujii, “Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors,” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 15(5), 701–709 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1993 (1)

J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Ann. Intern. Med. 118(3), 201–210 (1993).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1990 (1)

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

1988 (2)

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
[PubMed]

1973 (1)

R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610–621 (1973).
[Crossref]

Amidi, E.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Amneus, M.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Arridge, S. R.

B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).

Beard, P. C.

B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).

Benacerraf, B.

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

Bourne, T.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Brewer, M. A.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Bristow, R. E.

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Carson, P. L.

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Chapman, W.

Chatterjee, D.

Chen, D. X.

D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
[PubMed]

Chen, R.

Cheng, Q.

Clarke-Pearson, D. L.

D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Screening for ovarian cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med. 361(2), 170–177 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Concato, J.

J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Ann. Intern. Med. 118(3), 201–210 (1993).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Cox, B.

B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).

Deng, C. X.

T. Feng, J. E. Perosky, K. M. Kozloff, G. Xu, Q. Cheng, S. Du, J. Yuan, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Characterization of bone microstructure using photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Opt. Express 23(19), 25217–25224 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

R. E. Kumon, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Frequency-domain analysis of photoacoustic imaging data from prostate adenocarcinoma tumors in a murine model,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37(5), 834–839 (2011).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Dinstein, I.

R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610–621 (1973).
[Crossref]

Domali, E.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Du, S.

Fairbanks, J.

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Farias-Eisner, R.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Feinstein, A. R.

J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Ann. Intern. Med. 118(3), 201–210 (1993).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Feng, T.

Finkler, N. J.

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

Fishman, E. K.

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Frost, C.

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Fujii, S.

Y. Nakamoto, T. Saga, and S. Fujii, “Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors,” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 15(5), 701–709 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Giuntoli, R. L.

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Gonzalez, I.

Grudzinskas, J. G.

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Hagemann, I. S.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Haralick, R. M.

R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610–621 (1973).
[Crossref]

Holford, T. R.

J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Ann. Intern. Med. 118(3), 201–210 (1993).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Hu, S.

L. V. Wang and S. Hu, “Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs,” Science 335(6075), 1458–1462 (2012).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Hysi, E.

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Jacobs, I.

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Janco, J. M.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Joshi, B.

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Jurkovic, D.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Knapp, R. C.

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

Kolios, M. C.

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Kozloff, K. M.

Kueck, A.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Kumavor, P.

H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Kumavor, P. D.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Kumon, R. E.

R. E. Kumon, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Frequency-domain analysis of photoacoustic imaging data from prostate adenocarcinoma tumors in a murine model,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37(5), 834–839 (2011).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Lang, J.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Laufer, J. G.

B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).

Lavin, P. T.

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

Leng, X.

Li, H.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Li, S. D.

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Li, X. G.

D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
[PubMed]

Lin, J. D.

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

May, J. P.

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Meng, Z. X.

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Merkulov, A.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Mostafa, A.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Mutch, D.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Mutch, M.

Nakamoto, Y.

Y. Nakamoto, T. Saga, and S. Fujii, “Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors,” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 15(5), 701–709 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Nandy, S.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

X. Leng, W. Chapman, B. Rao, S. Nandy, R. Chen, R. Rais, I. Gonzalez, Q. Zhou, D. Chatterjee, M. Mutch, and Q. Zhu, “Feasibility of co-registered ultrasound and acoustic-resolution photoacoustic imaging of human colorectal cancer,” Biomed. Opt. Express 9(11), 5159–5172 (2018).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Neven, P.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Nossov, V.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Oram, D.

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Pannu, H. K.

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Perosky, J. E.

Powell, M.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Rais, R.

Rao, B.

Reddy, S. T.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Rezvani, M.

A. Shaaban and M. Rezvani, “Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging,” Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 52(1), 73–93 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Robinson, K.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Saga, T.

Y. Nakamoto, T. Saga, and S. Fujii, “Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors,” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 15(5), 701–709 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Salehi, H. S.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Salman Alqasemi, U.

H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Sanders, M.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Schulick, R. D.

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Schwartz, P. E.

D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
[PubMed]

Shaaban, A.

A. Shaaban and M. Rezvani, “Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging,” Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 52(1), 73–93 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Shanmugam, K.

R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610–621 (1973).
[Crossref]

Siegel, C.

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

Su, F.

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Testa, A. C.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Timmerman, D.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Turner, J.

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Undzys, E.

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Valentin, L.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Valluru, K. S.

K. S. Valluru, K. E. Wilson, and J. K. Willmann, “Photoacoustic imaging in oncology: translational preclinical and early clinical experience,” Radiology 280(2), 332–349 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Van Calster, B.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Van Holsbeke, C.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Van Huffel, S.

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Vavadi, H.

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wahl, R. L.

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wang, L. V.

L. V. Wang and S. Hu, “Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs,” Science 335(6075), 1458–1462 (2012).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wang, X.

T. Feng, J. E. Perosky, K. M. Kozloff, G. Xu, Q. Cheng, S. Du, J. Yuan, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Characterization of bone microstructure using photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Opt. Express 23(19), 25217–25224 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

R. E. Kumon, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Frequency-domain analysis of photoacoustic imaging data from prostate adenocarcinoma tumors in a murine model,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37(5), 834–839 (2011).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Willmann, J. K.

K. S. Valluru, K. E. Wilson, and J. K. Willmann, “Photoacoustic imaging in oncology: translational preclinical and early clinical experience,” Radiology 280(2), 332–349 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wilson, K. E.

K. S. Valluru, K. E. Wilson, and J. K. Willmann, “Photoacoustic imaging in oncology: translational preclinical and early clinical experience,” Radiology 280(2), 332–349 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wirtzfeld, L. A.

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Wojciechowski, C.

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

Xu, G.

T. Feng, J. E. Perosky, K. M. Kozloff, G. Xu, Q. Cheng, S. Du, J. Yuan, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Characterization of bone microstructure using photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Opt. Express 23(19), 25217–25224 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Yang, Z.

D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
[PubMed]

Yuan, J.

T. Feng, J. E. Perosky, K. M. Kozloff, G. Xu, Q. Cheng, S. Du, J. Yuan, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Characterization of bone microstructure using photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Opt. Express 23(19), 25217–25224 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Zhou, Q.

Zhu, Q.

X. Leng, W. Chapman, B. Rao, S. Nandy, R. Chen, R. Rais, I. Gonzalez, Q. Zhou, D. Chatterjee, M. Mutch, and Q. Zhu, “Feasibility of co-registered ultrasound and acoustic-resolution photoacoustic imaging of human colorectal cancer,” Biomed. Opt. Express 9(11), 5159–5172 (2018).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. (1)

V. Nossov, M. Amneus, F. Su, J. Lang, J. M. Janco, S. T. Reddy, and R. Farias-Eisner, “The early detection of ovarian cancer: from traditional methods to proteomics. Can we really do better than serum CA-125?” Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 199(3), 215–223 (2008).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Ann. Intern. Med. (1)

J. Concato, A. R. Feinstein, and T. R. Holford, “The risk of determining risk with multivariable models,” Ann. Intern. Med. 118(3), 201–210 (1993).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Biomed. Opt. Express (1)

Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. (1)

I. Jacobs, D. Oram, J. Fairbanks, J. Turner, C. Frost, and J. G. Grudzinskas, “A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer,” Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 97(10), 922–929 (1990).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. (1)

A. Shaaban and M. Rezvani, “Ovarian cancer: detection and radiologic staging,” Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 52(1), 73–93 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Gynecol. Oncol. (1)

R. E. Bristow, R. L. Giuntoli, H. K. Pannu, R. D. Schulick, E. K. Fishman, and R. L. Wahl, “Combined PET/CT for detecting recurrent ovarian cancer limited to retroperitoneal lymph nodes,” Gynecol. Oncol. 99(2), 294–300 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. (1)

R. M. Haralick, K. Shanmugam, and I. Dinstein, “Textural Features for Image Classification,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 3(6), 610–621 (1973).
[Crossref]

Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer (1)

Y. Nakamoto, T. Saga, and S. Fujii, “Positron emission tomography application for gynecologic tumors,” Int. J. Gynecol. Cancer 15(5), 701–709 (2005).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

J. Biomed. Opt. (3)

H. Li, P. Kumavor, U. Salman Alqasemi, and Q. Zhu, “Utilizing spatial and spectral features of photoacoustic imaging for ovarian cancer detection and diagnosis,” J. Biomed. Opt. 20(1), 016002 (2015).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

H. S. Salehi, H. Li, A. Merkulov, P. D. Kumavor, H. Vavadi, M. Sanders, A. Kueck, M. A. Brewer, and Q. Zhu, “Coregistered photoacoustic and ultrasound imaging and classification of ovarian cancer: ex vivo and in vivo studies,” J. Biomed. Opt. 21(4), 046006 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

B. Cox, J. G. Laufer, S. R. Arridge, and P. C. Beard, “Quantitative spectroscopic photoacoustic imaging: a review,” J. Biomed. Opt. 17(6), 061202 (2012).

J. Natl. Cancer Inst. (1)

B. Van Calster, D. Timmerman, T. Bourne, A. C. Testa, C. Van Holsbeke, E. Domali, D. Jurkovic, P. Neven, S. Van Huffel, and L. Valentin, “Discrimination between benign and malignant adnexal masses by specialist ultrasound examination versus serum CA-125,” J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 99(22), 1706–1714 (2007).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

N. Engl. J. Med. (1)

D. L. Clarke-Pearson, “Screening for ovarian cancer,” N. Engl. J. Med. 361(2), 170–177 (2009).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Obstet. Gynecol. (2)

D. X. Chen, P. E. Schwartz, X. G. Li, and Z. Yang, “Evaluation of CA 125 levels in differentiating malignant from benign tumors in patients with pelvic masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(1), 23–27 (1988).
[PubMed]

N. J. Finkler, B. Benacerraf, P. T. Lavin, C. Wojciechowski, and R. C. Knapp, “Comparison of serum CA 125, clinical impression, and ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of ovarian masses,” Obstet. Gynecol. 72(4), 659–664 (1988).
[PubMed]

Opt. Express (1)

Photoacoustics (1)

E. Hysi, L. A. Wirtzfeld, J. P. May, E. Undzys, S. D. Li, and M. C. Kolios, “Photoacoustic signal characterization of cancer treatment response: Correlation with changes in tumor oxygenation,” Photoacoustics 5(5), 25–35 (2017).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Radiology (3)

G. Xu, Z. X. Meng, J. D. Lin, J. Yuan, P. L. Carson, B. Joshi, and X. Wang, “The functional pitch of an organ: quantification of tissue texture with photoacoustic spectrum analysis,” Radiology 271(1), 248–254 (2014).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

S. Nandy, A. Mostafa, I. S. Hagemann, M. Powell, E. Amidi, K. Robinson, D. Mutch, C. Siegel, and Q. Zhu, “Role of Co-Registered Photoacoustic and Ultrasound Tomography: Initial Application for Evaluation of Ovarian Cancer,” Radiology 289(3), 740–747 (2018).
[Crossref]

K. S. Valluru, K. E. Wilson, and J. K. Willmann, “Photoacoustic imaging in oncology: translational preclinical and early clinical experience,” Radiology 280(2), 332–349 (2016).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Science (1)

L. V. Wang and S. Hu, “Photoacoustic tomography: in vivo imaging from organelles to organs,” Science 335(6075), 1458–1462 (2012).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Ultrasound Med. Biol. (1)

R. E. Kumon, C. X. Deng, and X. Wang, “Frequency-domain analysis of photoacoustic imaging data from prostate adenocarcinoma tumors in a murine model,” Ultrasound Med. Biol. 37(5), 834–839 (2011).
[Crossref] [PubMed]

Other (4)

A. A. Oraevsky and A. A. Karabutov, Optoacoustic tomography. In: Vo-Dinh T, ed. Biomedical photonics handbook. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC, (2003).

K. R. Lee, F. A. Tavassoli, J. Prat, M. Dietel, D. J. Gersell, and A. I. Karseladze, Surface Epithelial Stromal Tumours: Tumours of the Ovary and Peritoneum. FA. Tavassoli, P. Devilee, IARC Press: Lyon; 117–145 (2003).

American Cancer Society, Cancer facts and figures, 2017, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA (2017)

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/ovarian-cancer/about/key-statistics.html

Cited By

OSA participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (9)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1 Top row: co-registered rHbT and US images of a benign mucinous cystadenoma (a) and a high-grade serous carcinoma (b). The vascular distribution of the benign lesion is more scattered, but more localized and intense for the malignant ovary. Bottom row: the calibrated PAT power spectra and their fitted lines in the regions associated with the angular dashed lines in each image. Note the different Y-axis depth ranges.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2 ROI selection for image analysis. A larger rectangular region associated with the ovarian tissue is first selected (a). After that, the Radon transforms of the image at angles of 0 and 90 degrees in the selected area are calculated (b). These Radon transforms are then normalized, and a Gaussian curve is fitted to each of them. The means of the Gaussian curves determine the center of a square with a side of 2 cm where the image analysis is performed.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3 Co-registered PAT and US images and magnification of the PAT images in the areas indicated by the dashed rectangle for a benign fibrothecoma (a) and an ovary with epithelial cancer (b). The values of the textural features for each image are also shown.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4 Box plots of the significant features for the three groups of ovaries. For each feature, the p-value between each pair of the three groups is shown in the plots.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5 ROCs for the training (left) and testing (right) data sets and the associated AUCs for different feature sets, using the GLM (upper row) and SVM (lower row) classifiers. The classifiers distinguish benign/normal from epithelial cancers.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6 Box plots of the significant features for two groups of ovaries. For each feature, the p-value between the two groups is shown.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7 ROC for the training (left) and testing (right) data sets and the associated AUCs for different feature sets, using the GLM (upper row) and SVM (lower row) classifiers. The classifiers distinguish benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial cancer and other neoplasms.
Fig. 8
Fig. 8 ROC for the training (left) and testing (right) data sets and the associated AUCs for different feature sets, using the GLM (upper row) and SVM (lower row) classifiers. The classifiers distinguish benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial cancers. Functional features are not included in the features set.
Fig. 9
Fig. 9 ROC for the training (left) and testing (right) data sets and the associated AUCs for different feature sets, using the GLM (upper row) and SVM (lower row) classifiers. The classifiers distinguish benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial cancers and other neoplasms. Functional features are not included in the feature set.

Tables (5)

Tables Icon

Table 1 Lesion Characteristics (24 patients, 39 ovaries; average age 54 years, range 34-76 years)

Tables Icon

Table 2 Ordering the significant features for distinguishing benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial cancer, based on their p-values (left) and Spearman’s rho between each feature and the class label.

Tables Icon

Table 3 Spearman’s cross correlation between each two features in the set of significant features for distinguishing benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial cancer.

Tables Icon

Table 4 Ordering the significant features for distinguishing benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial and other ovarian cancers, based on their p-values (left) and Spearman’s rho between each feature and the class label.

Tables Icon

Table 5 Spearman’s cross correlation between each two features in the significant features set for distinguishing benign/normal ovarian masses from epithelial and other ovarian cancers.

Equations (7)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

rHb O 2 (r,θ)= C ¯ (r,θ)Hb O 2 (r,θ),and
rHb(r,θ)= C ¯ (r,θ)Hb(r,θ),
sO2(r,θ)= Hb O 2 (r,θ) Hb O 2 (r,θ)+Hb(r,θ) ×100%.
Contrast= |ij|=0 N1 |ij | 2 i=1 N j=1 N c(i,j) ,
Correlation= i=1 N j=1 N (i μ i )(j μ j )c(i,j) σ i σ j ,
Energy= i=1 N j=1 N c (i,j) 2 ,and
Homogeneity= i=1 N j=1 N c (i,j) 2 1+|ij| ,

Metrics