Open Access
3 December 2012 Detection of nasopharyngeal cancer using confocal Raman spectroscopy and genetic algorithm technique
Shaoxin Li, Qiu-Yan Chen, Yan-Jiao Zhang, Zhiming Liu, Honglian Xiong, Zhouyi Guo, Hai-Qiang Mai, Songhao Liu
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
Raman spectroscopy (RS) and a genetic algorithm (GA) were applied to distinguish nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) from normal nasopharyngeal tissue. A total of 225 Raman spectra are acquired from 120 tissue sites of 63 nasopharyngeal patients, 56 Raman spectra from normal tissue and 169 Raman spectra from NPC tissue. The GA integrated with linear discriminant analysis (LDA) is developed to differentiate NPC and normal tissue according to spectral variables in the selected regions of 792-805, 867-880, 996-1009, 1086-1099, 1288-1304, 1663-1670, and 1742-1752 cm-1 related to proteins, nucleic acids and lipids of tissue. The GA-LDA algorithms with the leave-one-out cross-validation method provide a sensitivity of 69.2% and specificity of 100%. The results are better than that of principal component analysis which is applied to the same Raman dataset of nasopharyngeal tissue with a sensitivity of 63.3% and specificity of 94.6%. This demonstrates that Raman spectroscopy associated with GA-LDA diagnostic algorithm has enormous potential to detect and diagnose nasopharyngeal cancer.

1.

Introduction

Nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) is a nonlymphomatous squamous cell carcinoma that occurs in the epithelial lining of the nasopharynx.1 The incidence of NPC occurs with much greater frequency in southern China, northern Africa, and Alaska. It is reported that the disease is the third most common malignancy among men, with an incidence about 50 per 100,000 in the Guangdong Province of China.2 At present, the clinical diagnosis of NPC mainly depends on white-light endoscope technique and excisional biopsy. Endoscope technique relies on the observation of gross morphological changes of tissues, thus, it is difficult to identify the NPC in its early stages. Excisional biopsy remains the gold standard approach for cancer diagnosis, but it involves a high level of operational requirements for doctors and causes a lot of discomfort or may even be impractical for high-risk patients.3 Therefore, it is eminently desirable to develop a nondestructive technique to detect NPC at an early stage.

In recent years, the Raman spectroscopy technique has received a great deal of interest in cancer diagnosis.4,5 Raman spectroscopy is a vibrational spectroscopic technique that can provide specific spectroscopic fingerprint information about the molecular composition, structure and content of constituents.6 Compared with other optical spectroscopic techniques, such as the fluorescence spectroscopy and infrared absorption spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy has significant advantages. For instance, there is no photobleaching in Raman scattering, and Raman spectral peaks are narrow.7,8 Especially, when the near-infrared excitation light is used, water exhibits very low absorption and tissues reveal far less autofluorescence compared with visible light excitation. This makes it easier to detect biochemical components within a deeper layer of the tissue. Over the past decade, Raman spectroscopy has been applied to classify normal and malignant tissues of various body sites, including the breast, bladder, lung, prostate, cervix, skin, and so on.4,915 These studies show that Raman spectral features could be used to correlate with the molecular and structural changes associated with carcinomatous transformations, demonstrating the feasibility of early cancer detection by Raman spectroscopy.

The differences of Raman spectra among different tissue types are usually subtle because of obvious spectral overlapping. Thus, powerful and robust spectral data processing and diagnostic algorithms are required to extract significant Raman spectral features associated with the histopathology. In recent years, multivariate statistical algorithms such as principal component analysis (PCA), linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) have been widely applied for the classification of various tissues by Raman spectroscopy.4,16 These statistical methods improve the precision and reliability of the procedure.17

PCA is a mathematical tool that reduces the dimensions of the dataset by orthogonally projecting data onto a lower dimensional linear space, such that the variance of the projected data is maximized. Combined with LDA and support vector machines, it has been applied to distinguish the biomedical Raman spectra.18,19 PCA is efficient for data classification, but PCs have no definite physical meanings because they are extracted from a linear combination of original variables. Furthermore, PCA is generally calculated using the entire spectrum that contains much redundant data and noise, which have no contribution to the principal components and reduce the performance of the PCA.20

Feature selection is another data reduction technique that mines feature subsets from the original data space. The classification attributes of the subset are, as much as possible, to remain consistent with the raw data. The main advantages of feature selection are to decrease the number of variables to help understand the discovered pattern by eliminating irrelevant features from raw dataset, and to increase the accuracy of classification. To improve the ability of finding a meaningful low-dimensional data structure in high-dimensional sample space, several feature selection strategies such as filter, embedded and wrapper have been developed according to different evaluation criteria.21,22 The genetic algorithm (GA), based on Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, has emerged as an adaptive heuristic search algorithm for efficient features selection.23 Compared with other search methods, GA is robust, parallel, and has global search superiority. GA has displayed excellent ability in feature selection in microarray analysis, mass spectrometry, sequence analysis, and so on.2427 This study introduces GA combined with LDA method to select characteristic spectra for classification from Raman spectroscopy of NPC tissues. Furthermore, to compare the performance of GA-LDA, PCA-LDA algorithms are used to analyze the same Raman spectra of NPC tissues. The main purpose of this study is to explore the feasibility of classifying and diagnosing Raman spectra of NPC tissues with GA-LDA algorithms, and to provide an intuitive reference for the clinical diagnosis of Raman spectroscopy.

2.

Materials and Methods

2.1.

Patients and Tissue Sample

A total of 63 nasopharyngeal tissues were collected from 63 patients (17 women and 46 men with a median age of 44.6 years) who underwent endoscopic biopsies. Prior to research, all patients signed an informed consent to permit collection of excision specimens. After biopsies, the samples were divided into two parts, one for Raman measurements within 2 h and another for histopathologic examination conducted by a specialist nasopharyngeal pathologist after being fixed in 10% formalin solution. The results revealed that of the 63 nasopharyngeal tissue samples, 46 were dysplasia, and 17 were normal. Figure 1 shows the comparison of haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections of normal and dysplastic nasopharyngeal tissues.

Fig. 1

(a) HE staining of normal nasopharyngeal tissue: a case showing nasopharyngeal pseudostratified ciliated columnar epithelium, no cell atypia. Magnification, 200×. (b) HE staining of nasopharyngeal carcinoma tissue: a case showing cancer cell nests (black line roped) with obvious nuclear atypia and abundant cytoplasm. Magnification, 200×.

JBO_17_12_125003_f001.png

2.2.

Instrumentation

The Raman spectroscopy was recorded with a confocal Raman microscopy (Renishaw, inVia, United Kingdom) in the range of 720 to 1800cm1 with a spectral resolution about 1cm1 under a 785 nm diode laser excitation. The spectra were collected in back-scattered geometry using a Leica DM2500 microscope equipped with objective 20×. The power of laser exposed on sample was about 1 mw with a spot diameter about 5 μm. The software package WIRE 3.2 (Renishaw) was employed for spectral acquisition and analysis. Each Raman spectra was acquired twice with an integration time of 10 s. All data was collected under the same conditions.

2.3.

Data Preprocessing

The Raman spectra acquired from nasopharyngeal tissues contained many autofluorescence and background noises.28 A fifth-order polynomial was employed to fit the broad tissue autofluorescence background, and then this polynomial was subtracted from original spectra. In order to compare the changes of spectral shapes and relative peak intensities among different nasopharyngeal tissue samples, an area normalized of spectra was employed. Vancouver Raman algorithm was employed for spectra smoothing and baseline correction. It is an automated autofluorescence background subtraction algorithm based on modified multi-polynomial fitting by presetting of the relevant parameters such as size of Boxcar smooth, order of polynomial fit and stop criteria.29

2.4.

Genetic Algorithm

GA is a cyclic process of iterative optimization.30 The candidate solutions of the optimization problem are known as individuals that are presented with a variable sequence called chromosome or gene string. Chromosome is generally expressed as a simple string or numeric string, a process known as encoding. The first step of GA is to randomly generate a certain number of individuals to constitute a population. Then the individuals are evaluated by the fitness function, which is a particular type of objective function that is used to measure the optimization variables to be solved.3133

The following step is to produce individuals of the next generation and to form a population. This process is done by selecting and breeding which consists of crossover and mutation. Selection is carried out in accordance with the fitness value, but it does not mean that the individual with high fitness must be adopted. The principle of GA is that the individuals of higher fitness have greater probabilities of being accepted. A relatively optimal group can be assembled by initial data through this selection process. Then, the selected individuals go into the process of mating. Each two individuals produce two new individuals to replace the originals by crossover. Nonmating individuals remain unchanged. The chromosomes of mating parents exchange to produce two new chromosomes at a crossover point generated randomly on the chromosome. The next step is a mutation to produce fresh offspring of individuals. After this process (selection, crossover, and mutation) is finished, a new generation is created. Generation after generation, the overall fitness is increased. This process is constantly repeated: each individual is evaluated by the fitness, two individuals mate, mutate, and produce the next generation until the termination criteria is met.31

In this study, float point encoding is employed.34,35 The entire spectrum which contained 1012 variables is divided into 253 segments, and each segment has four continuous data points. Each individual consists of seven fragments corresponding to 28 data points. The initial individual is made of seven randomly generated different integers less than 253. Parameters given for the GA are 100 generations of runs, 20 individuals each generation, mutation probability of 5%, and crossover rate of 70%. The individual is evaluated with LDA method. The standard of evaluation is the integration area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

LDA is a statistical technique used to group the features of objects through projecting an original feature space to a lower dimensional space with as little loss in discrimination as possible.16 A method of leave-one-out cross-validation is employed to validate the classification performance. As such, one Raman spectra is left out, and the LDA model is rebuilt with the remaining Raman spectra to classify the withheld Raman spectra. This process is repeated until all Raman spectra retained are discriminated. A technique of roulette wheel selection is used to choose next-generation individuals. In this process, the fitness of all individuals is first normalized to 1 by dividing the fitness of each selection with the total fitness of all individuals. Then the normalized fitness is accumulated one by one to form probability space. The higher individual fitness equals a higher probability space on the ‘wheel’ and therefore a higher chance of selection. A random number less than 1 is generated when selection begins, and the individual whose probability space contains the random number is chosen. During the GA iterations, the most optimal individual with the best classification accuracy is completely preserved until the emergence of new individual with better fitness to replace it.

3.

Results

Figure 2 shows the comparison of normalized average Raman spectra 1 standard deviations of NPC and normal tissues in the range from 720 to 1800cm1. Primary Raman peaks are observed in both NPC and normal tissue at the following peak positions with tentative assignments:4,3643 788cm1 [vs(OPO), cytosine, uracil ring breathing], 831cm1 [out of plane ring breathing tyrosine, OPO stretch], 855cm1 [ν(CC) ring of proline, ring breathing of tyrosine], 940cm1 [ν(CC) of proline, valine and protein backbone], 1004cm1 [νs(CC) phenylalanine], 1033cm1 [CH in plane bending of phenylalanine], 1095cm1 [vs (PO2), ν(CN) of protein], 1128cm1 [ν(CC) of lipids/ν(CN) of protein], 1158cm1 [CC/CN strething mode of proteins], 1208cm1 [ν(CC6H5)) L-tryptophan and phenylalanine],41 1339cm1 [CH3CH2 wagging of collagen and polynucleotide chain], 1449cm1 [δ(CH2) of proteins and lipids], 1660cm1 [amide I ν(CO) collagen, α-Helix/ν(CC) of lipid]. The strongest peaks are at 1004, 1339, 1449, and 1660cm1. The spectral differences between NPC and normal tissues are clearly displayed from the difference spectra of Fig. 2(c), implying the enormous potential to diagnose NPC with Raman spectroscopy.

Fig. 2

Average Raman spectra of NPC tissue in the range from 720 to 1800cm1. The solid lines indicate the average spectra and the shaded lines represent one standard deviation. (a) NPC tissue spectra, (b) normal tissue spectra, (c) cancer-normal difference spectra (the difference spectra intensity is enlarged five times for clear display).

JBO_17_12_125003_f002.png

The GA-LDA algorithms are developed to search for the significant Raman spectral features that are relevant to different nasopharyngeal tissue pathologies. The algorithm parameters are adjusted repeatedly to obtain the best subset of Raman variables for tissue differentiation. Figure 3 displays the best and mean±1SD area under ROC curve (AUC) of the individuals in 50 generations with GA-LDA algorithms. There is a significant increase of AUC by the GA-LDA algorithm. In order to pick out diagnostic feature information contained in Raman spectra, the GA-LDA algorithms are repeated over 100 runs for selecting seven spectral bands. Figure 4 is the cumulative counts of Raman bands chosen with GA-LDA algorithms. It reveals the most useful spectral feature located in the regions of 792–805, 867–880, 996–1009, 1086–1099, 1288–1304, 1663–1670, and 17421752cm1. The corresponding tentative assignments of significant Raman bands in nasopharyngeal tissue are listed in Table 1.37,38,4143 The intensity differences of these Raman features between normal and cancerous tissues are also verified to be significant (p<0.005, unpaired Student’s t-test, 2-sided, equal variances for classification and diagnosis of nasopharyngeal tissues.

Fig. 3

The mean area under ROC curve (AUC) of the individual ±1 SD versus the best performance individuals in 50 generations with GA-LDA (20 individual, crossrate=0.7, mutationrate=0.05).

JBO_17_12_125003_f003.png

Fig. 4

The cumulative counts of Raman bands chosen with GA-LDA in 100 runs.

JBO_17_12_125003_f004.png

Table 1

Tentative assignment of significant Raman bands identified by GA-LDA algorithm.

Peak position (cm1)Vibrational assignmentsIntensity change (cancerous − normal)p-value
792–805vs(OPO) ring breathing+1.87E14
867–880v(CC) collagen4.12E8
996–1009vs(CC) Phenylalanine+2.31E9
1086–1099vs (PO2) nucleic acids+1.09E6
1288–1304δ(CH2), δ(CH3CH2) lipid2.71E4
1663–1670v(CO) Amide I+3.46E3
1742–1752v(CO) phospholipids1.42E3
Note: v-stretching mode; vs-Symmetric breathing; δ-bending mode. The mean intensity changes (increase: +; decrease: −) and the P-values of unpaired two-sided Student’s t-test on the Raman band intensities of normal and cancerous nasopharyngeal tissues.

The scatter plot of the linear discriminant scores of normal and NPC tissue using GA-LDA diagnostic model based on the seven significant Raman bands together with the leave-one-out cross-validation is displayed in Fig. 5. The dividing line produces diagnostic sensitivity of 69.2%, specificity of 100.0% and overall accuracy of 76.9% for discriminating NPC from normal nasopharyngeal tissue. Hence, the results of classification suggest that the GA-LDA algorithms develop a novel way to diagnose NPC from normal nasopharyngeal tissues by searching significant Raman features to build the discriminant model.

Fig. 5

Scatter plot of the linear discriminant scores of normal and NPC tissue using GA-LDA. The separate line produces diagnostic sensitivity of 69.2% (117/169) and specificity of 100.0% (56/56) for discriminating NPC from normal nasopharyngeal tissue.

JBO_17_12_125003_f005.png

To further evaluate the performance of the diagnostic model developed by GA-LDA algorithms, the ROC curve is generated (Fig. 6) from the scatter plot in Fig. 5. The ROC curve is an intuitive method of reflecting the relationship of sensitivity and specificity. It is obtained by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of different diagnostic thresholds. The integration area under the ROC curves is positively correlated with the diagnostic accuracy. To comparatively assess the effective diagnostic performances of GA-LDA algorithms, the ROC curve of PCA-LDA algorithms are also generated. It is illustrated by the improvement in the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities that GA-LDA algorithms give more effective diagnostic performances for differentiation of NPC from normal tissues. The integration areas under the ROC curves of GA-LDA algorithms and PCA-LDA algorithms are 0.956 and 0.924, respectively. These results further confirm that GA-LDA algorithms yield a better diagnostic accuracy than the PCA-LDA algorithms.

Fig. 6

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of Raman spectra discrimination results from NPC and normal tissue with PCA-LDA and GA-LDA algorithms together with the leave-one-out cross-validation method. The integration area under the ROC curves for PCA-LDA and GA-LDA are 0.924 and 0.956, respectively, illustrating the efficacy of GA-LDA in NPC diagnosis with Raman spectroscopy.

JBO_17_12_125003_f006.png

4.

Discussions

Raman spectroscopy is a unique noninvasive detection technique that can produce abundant information about molecular composition and structure of biological tissue. It may become a promising clinical diagnostic tool by probing subtle molecular changes relevant to tissue pathology. The Raman signal is very weak, but with the development of confocal Raman microscopy spectroscopy techniques, the development of Raman spectroscopy in biomedical field is greatly enhanced.4447 NPC is a malignancy of the head and neck with a marked racial and geographic distribution. NPC detection in the early stage is often difficult due to the nonspecific symptoms. Several groups have been studying the diagnosis of NPC with Raman spectroscopy technique. For example, Lau et al. implemented a preliminary study of normal and NPC tissue from six patients with Raman spectroscopy, they found consistent differences in three bands 1290–1320, 1420–1470, 15301580cm1.40 Feng et al., researched surface-enhanced Raman scattering of human nasopharyngeal tissue with gold nanoparticle. They found that Raman spectral imaging based on three characteristic peaks at 962, 725, and 1366cm1, confirmed there were vigorous metabolism and strong enzymatic activities in tumor tissues.41 This study demonstrates the great potential of Raman spectra for probing the biochemical heterogeneities of nasopharyngeal cancerous tissues using gold nanoparticles. But there are fluctuations depended on the excitation light intensity in the Raman scattering signals at the tissue level. Later Feng et al., measured blood plasma surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy of NPC patients and normal volunteers. They successfully separated the two groups’ spectra with sensitivity of 90.7% and specificity of 100% by PCA-LDA technique.37

In this work, we have studied Raman spectral properties of NPC and normal tissue with confocal Raman microscopy and explored the potential to improve the diagnostic performance with feature selection technique based on GA-LDA algorithms. The distinct spectra differences of normal and NPC tissue are observed from difference spectra in Fig. 2(c). It indicates that there is a great potential of differentiating dysplasia from normal nasopharyngeal tissue with Raman spectroscopy. The main intensity differences are located at around 788cm1 [vs(OPO), cytosine, uracil ring breathing], 1004cm1 [νs(CC) phenylalanine], 1339cm1 [CH3CH2 wagging of collagen and polynucleotide chain], 1449cm1 [δ(CH2) of proteins and lipids], 1660cm1 [amide I ν(CO) collagen, α-Helix/ν(CC) of lipid]. These results are basically in agreement with the other reports about NPC.5,40,41 In the same range of 950 to 1650cm1, our Raman spectral shape is the same to the Lau et al.’s, results, but different with the Feng et al.’s. The changes of Raman spectral shape are due to the use of surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy technology which only enhances some peaks.40,41

However, the Raman spectral pattern of normal and cancer tissue is very similar. There is an urgent need to develop the efficient diagnostic algorithms to interpret these tiny spectral changes. To solve the above problems, we employ feature selection technique based on GA-LDA algorithm to correlate significant spectral bands with tissue pathology. The GA-LDA results display that diagnostically important variables are limited to several Raman spectral bands that are related to proteins, nucleic acids and lipids. The important seven spectral bands are distributed in the regions around 792–805, 867–880, 996–1009, 1086–1099, 1288–1304, 1663–1670, and 17421752cm1. These Raman bands mainly correlate with dysplasia progression. For instance, the Raman peak 867880cm1 (CC stretching mode of collagen) is found to decrease significantly, indicating that there is a relative reduction of collagen content in cancer tissue. The main cause is that cancer cells spread to underlying stromal layer and express a class of metalloprotease, leading to an overall decrease of collagen content in cancer tissue.48 The decrease of Raman bands 12881304cm1 (CH3CH2 bending of lipid) and 17421752cm1 (CO stretching of phospholipids) associated with lipids illustrates that the proportion of fat content in the cancerous tissue is greatly reduced. The likely reason is that amplified cancer cells consume a lot of fat, resulting in decrease of lipid molecules.49,50 Nucleic acid-related Raman bands of 10861099cm1 (PO2 Symmetric breathing of nucleic acids) are significantly enhanced, as cancer cells proliferate indefinitely, and DNA replicates greatly, leading to increased content of cells DNA.41,42 In the Raman bands of 10861099cm1 and 15301560cm1, our difference spectra are consistent with Lau et al.’s, results. While in the Raman bands of 1420 and 1470cm1, our difference spectra are different from their results. This may be attributed to the measurement conditions and amount of sample. We measured 63 patients with the beam spot diameter about 5 μm, and Lau measured 6 patients with the beam spot diameter of 3.5 mm.

There are several indicators to evaluate the diagnostic capabilities of a particular algorithm such as sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC, in which AUC can be a comprehensive reflection of the diagnostic algorithm to identify the disease. Other teams have also chosen accuracy as evaluation standard.51 In this study, AUC is adopted as the fitness function of GA and has obtained better search results in Fig. 3. The best AUC is 0.956, corresponding diagnostic accuracy 0.769. We also attempt to use the diagnostic accuracy as fitness function to search the characteristic Raman bands, and get the best AUC 0.944, accuracy 0.780. Although the results of the evaluation functions are close, we believe that the AUC is more suitable to assess the diagnostic model.

The diagnostic model built by GA-LDA technique searching important Raman feature spectra of nasopharyngeal tissue produces a sensitivity of 69.2%, specificity of 100.0% and overall accuracy of 76.9%. The area of 0.956 under the ROC curve further affirms the efficient diagnostic performances of GA-LDA-based algorithms for classification NPC from normal tissue. To compare the performances of GA-LDA algorithms with conventional multivariate statistical technique, PCA-LDA algorithms are applied to classify the same Raman dataset. The cumulative contribution rate in the first 20 PCs is 95.3% of total variance, corresponding diagnostic accuracy of 73.3%, sensitivity of 63.3% and specificity of 94.6% with unpaired two-side t-test (p<0.05) together with the leave-one-out cross-validation. The integration area of ROC curve is 0.924 for PCA-LDA algorithms as display in Fig. 6. Although PCA-LDA algorithms yield good classification effects, it can’t explain the contributions to discriminant results come from what biochemical component associated with tissue malignancy because PCA variables are extracted from entire Raman spectra of nasopharyngeal tissue. The GA-LDA algorithms provide a simplified diagnostic model with improved diagnostic accuracy by the selection of significant Raman feature bands related to biochemical components such as proteins, nucleic acids and lipids. The possible reason of GA-LDA algorithms improving diagnostic performances is that GA is a heuristic optimization technique that can search characteristic Raman spectra with distinct classification attributes.30 Other groups have also applied feature selection technique based on GA with Raman spectroscopy for the classification. For example, Duraipandian et al., use GA partial least squares discriminant analysis and Raman spectroscopy to identify biomolecular changes of cervical tissue associated with dysplastic transformation. They achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 82.9%, sensitivity of 72.5% and specificity of 89.2% for precancer detection.27 Lavine et al., successfully classified several wood types by the application of GA to extract features of woods’ Raman spectroscopy.52 All of above results demonstrate that the GA-LDA algorithms are very attractive techniques that are expected to provide a more accurate diagnostic model for the clinical application of Raman spectroscopy.

5.

Conclusion

In conclusion, an efficient diagnostic model based on GA-LDA algorithms picking out the characteristic Raman bands associated with biochemical components is developed and applied to classify the NPC from normal tissue. An improved diagnostic accuracy of 76.9%, sensitivity of 69.2% and specificity of 100.0% is obtained. Compared with the PCA-LDA algorithms, the GA-LDA technique can build a simpler diagnostic model with clearer physical meaning and higher diagnostic efficiency. This work demonstrates that the Raman spectroscopy associated with GA-LDA diagnostic algorithms has enormous potential to detect and diagnose NPC.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Dongguan Science and Technology Project (201010815207), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (60778047), Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (20114407110001), the Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province (9251063101000009) and the Cooperation Project in Industry, Education and Research of Guangdong province and Ministry of Education of China (2011A090200011).

References

1. 

W. I. WeiJ. S. T. Sham, “Nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” The Lancet, 365 (9476), 2041 –2054 (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66698-6 LOANBN 1470-2045 Google Scholar

2. 

J. H. C. Ho, “An epidemiologic and clinical study of nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys., 4 (3–4), 183 –198 (1978). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(78)90137-2 IOBPD3 0360-3016 Google Scholar

3. 

K. Tabuchiet al., “Early detection of nasopharyngeal carcinoma,” Int. J. Otolaryngol., 2011 638058 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/638058 Google Scholar

4. 

Y. Huet al., “Classification of normal and malignant human gastric mucosa tissue with confocal Raman microspectroscopy and wavelet analysis,” Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc., 69 (2), 378 –382 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.saa.2007.04.009 Google Scholar

5. 

A. T. Harriset al., “Raman spectroscopy in head and neck cancer,” Head Neck Oncol., 2 26 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-3284-2-26 Google Scholar

6. 

E. B. Hanlonet al., “Prospects for in vivo Raman spectroscopy,” Phys. Med. Biol., 45 (2), R1 –R59 (2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/45/2/201 PHMBA7 0031-9155 Google Scholar

7. 

A. Shapiroet al., “Raman molecular imaging: a novel spectroscopic technique for diagnosis of bladder cancer in urine specimens,” Eur. Urol., 59 (1), 106 –112 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2010.10.027 EUURAV 0302-2838 Google Scholar

8. 

N. Liet al., “Micro–Raman spectroscopy study of the effect of mid-ultraviolet radiation on erythrocyte membrane,” J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol., 112 37 –42 (2012). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2012.04.005 JPPBEG 1011-1344 Google Scholar

9. 

T. Kawabataet al., “Optical diagnosis of gastric cancer using near-infrared multichannel Raman spectroscopy with a 1064-nm excitation wavelength,” J. Gastroenterol., 43 (4), 283 –290 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00535-008-2160-2 0944-1174 Google Scholar

10. 

H. Abramczyket al., “The hallmarks of breast cancer by Raman spectroscopy,” J. Molec. Struct., 924–926 175 –182 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2008.12.055 JMOSB4 0022-2860 Google Scholar

11. 

C. A. Lieberet al., “In vivo nonmelanoma skin cancer diagnosis using Raman microspectroscopy,” Laser. Surg. Med., 40 (7), 461 –467 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lsm.v40:7 LSMEDI 0196-8092 Google Scholar

12. 

C. M. Krishnaet al., “Raman spectroscopy studies for diagnosis of cancers in human uterine cervix,” Vibrational Spectrosc., 41 (1), 136 –141 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vibspec.2006.01.011 VISPEK 0924-2031 Google Scholar

13. 

P. Crowet al., “Assessment of fiberoptic near-infrared Raman spectroscopy for diagnosis of bladder and prostate cancer,” Urology, 65 (6), 1126 –1130 (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2004.12.058 0090-4295 Google Scholar

14. 

B. Brożek-Płuskaet al., “Breast cancer diagnostics by Raman spectroscopy,” J. Mol. Liq., 141 (3), 145 –148 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2008.02.015 JMLIDT 0167-7322 Google Scholar

15. 

K. E. Shafer-Peltieret al., “Raman microspectroscopic model of human breast tissue: implications for breast cancer diagnosisin vivo,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 33 (7), 552 –563 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4555 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

16. 

M. Sattleckeret al., “Assessment of robustness and transferability of classification models built for cancer diagnostics using Raman spectroscopy,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 42 (5), 897 –903 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrs.2798 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

17. 

S. K. Tehet al., “Diagnostic potential of near-infrared Raman spectroscopy in the stomach: differentiating dysplasia from normal tissue,” Brit. J. Cancer, 98 (2), 457 –465 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604176 BJCAAI 0007-0920 Google Scholar

18. 

B. Yanet al., “Discrimination of parotid neoplasms from the normal parotid gland by use of Raman spectroscopy and support vector machine,” Oral Oncol., 47 (5), 430 –435 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2011.02.021 EJCCER 1368-8375 Google Scholar

19. 

M. Gniadeckaet al., “Diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma by Raman spectroscopy,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 28 (2–3), 125 –129 (1997). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4555(199702)28:2/3<125::AID-JRS65>3.3.CO;2-R JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

20. 

H. Shinzawaet al., “Multivariate data analysis for Raman spectroscopic imaging,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 40 (12), 1720 –1725 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrs.v40:12 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

21. 

H. W. Ressomet al., “Peak selection from MALDI-TOF mass spectra using ant colony optimization,” Bioinformatics, 23 (5), 619 –626 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btl678 BOINFP 1367-4803 Google Scholar

22. 

R. M. BalabinS. V. Smirnov, “Variable selection in near-infrared spectroscopy: benchmarking of feature selection methods on biodiesel data,” Anal. Chim. Acta, 692 (1–2), 63 –72 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2011.03.006 ACACAM 0003-2670 Google Scholar

23. 

A. Durandet al., “Genetic algorithm optimisation combined with partial least squares regression and mutual information variable selection procedures in near-infrared quantitative analysis of cotton–viscose textiles,” Anal. Chim. Acta, 595 (1–2), 72 –79 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2007.03.024 ACACAM 0003-2670 Google Scholar

24. 

R. M. JarvisR. Goodacre, “Genetic algorithm optimization for pre-processing and variable selection of spectroscopic data,” Bioinformatics, 21 (7), 860 –868 (2005). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bti102 BOINFP 1367-4803 Google Scholar

25. 

C. R. W. Leping LiT. A. DardenL. G. Pedersen, “Gene selection for sample classification based on gene expression data: study of sensitivity to choice of parameters of the GA/KNN method,” Bioinformatics, 17 (12), 1131 –1142 (2001). http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/17.12.1131 BOINFP 1367-4803 Google Scholar

26. 

M. A. J. Asha Gowda KaregowdaA. S. Manjunath, “Feature subset selection using cascaded GA &CFS: a filter approach in supervised learning,” Int. J. Comput. Appl., 23 (2), 1 –10 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.5120/2865-3711 1819-4966 Google Scholar

27. 

S. Duraipandianet al., “In vivo diagnosis of cervical precancer using Raman spectroscopy and genetic algorithm techniques,” Analyst, 136 (20), 4328 –4336 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c1an15296c ANLYAG 0365-4885 Google Scholar

28. 

Z. Zhaoet al., “A spectrum signals detection method for surface enhanced Raman scattering under high fluorescence and background noise,” Spectrosc. Spectral Anal., 30 (8), 2146 –2150 (2010). Google Scholar

29. 

H. L. Jianhua ZhaoD. I. McleanH. Zeng, “Automated autofluorescence background subtraction algorithm for biomedical Raman spectroscopy,” Appl. Spectrosc., 61 (11), 1225 –1232 (2007). http://dx.doi.org/10.1366/000370207782597003 APSPA4 0003-7028 Google Scholar

30. 

D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, New York (1989). Google Scholar

31. 

J. H. Holland, Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control and Artificial Intelligence, Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1975). Google Scholar

32. 

P. Roccaet al., “Evolutionary optimization as applied to inverse scattering problems,” Inverse Probl., 25 (12), 123003 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/25/12/123003 INPEEY 0266-5611 Google Scholar

33. 

C. PinkeyD. KusumP. Millie, “Optimizing cnc turning process using real coded genetic algorithm and differential evolution,” Global J. Technol. Optimization, 2 57 –165 (2011). Google Scholar

34. 

M. Cui, “A float code genetic algorithm based on orthonormal multiwavelet denoising mutation,” in Int. Joint Conf. on Computational Sciences and Optimization, CSO 2009, 172 –175 (2009). Google Scholar

35. 

Y. T. KaoE. Zahara, “A hybrid genetic algorithm and particle swarm optimization for multimodal functions,” Appl. Soft. Comput., 8 (2), 849 –857 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2007.07.002 1568-4946 Google Scholar

36. 

I. Notingheret al., “Spectroscopic study of human lung epithelial Cells (A549) in culter: living cells versus dead cells,” Biopolymers, 72 (4), 230 –240 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0282 BIPMAA 0006-3525 Google Scholar

37. 

S. Fenget al., “Nasopharyngeal cancer detection based on blood plasma surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy and multivariate analysis,” Biosens. Bioelectron., 25 (11), 2414 –2419 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2010.03.033 BBIOE4 0956-5663 Google Scholar

38. 

Z. Huanget al., “Near-infrared Raman spectroscopy for optical diagnosis of lung cancer,” Int. J. Cancer, 107 (6), 1047 –1052 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0215 IJCNAW 1097-0215 Google Scholar

39. 

H. Wanget al., “Depth-resolved in vivo micro–Raman spectroscopy of a murine skin tumor model reveals cancer-specific spectral biomarkers,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 42 (2), 160 –166 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrs.v42.2 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

40. 

D. P. Lauet al., “Raman spectroscopy for optical diagnosis in normal and cancerous tissue of the nasopharynx-preliminary findings,” Laser. Surg. Med., 32 (3), 210 –214 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9101 LSMEDI 0196-8092 Google Scholar

41. 

S. Fenget al., “Gold nanoparticle based surface-enhanced Raman scattering spectroscopy of cancerous and normal nasopharyngeal tissues under near-infrared laser excitation,” Appl. Spectrosc., 63 (10), 1089 –1094 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1366/000370209789553291 APSPA4 0003-7028 Google Scholar

42. 

N. Stoneet al., “Near-infrared Raman spectroscopy for the classification of epithelial pre-cancers and cancers,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 33 (7), 564 –573 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-4555 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

43. 

J. W. Chanet al., “Micro-Raman spectroscopy detects individual neoplastic and normal hematopoietic cells,” Biophys. J., 90 (2), 648 –656 (2006). http://dx.doi.org/10.1529/biophysj.105.066761 BIOJAU 0006-3495 Google Scholar

44. 

T. Bocklitzet al., “A comprehensive study of classification methods for medical diagnosis,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 40 (12), 1759 –1765 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrs.v40:12 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

45. 

E. ZuserT. ChernenkoJ. NewmarkM. MiljkovicM. Diem, “Confocal Raman microspectral imaging (CRMI) of murine stem cell colonies,” The Analyst., 135 (12), 3030 –3033 (2010). http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c0an00546k ANALAO 0003-2654 Google Scholar

46. 

W. G. L. P. J. CaspersG. J. Puppels, “Combined in vivo confocal Raman spectroscopy and confocal microscopy of human skin,” Biophys. J., 85 (1), 572 –580 (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3495(03)74501-9 BIOJAU 0006-3495 Google Scholar

47. 

M. Larraona-Puyet al., “Development of Raman microspectroscopy for automated detection and imaging of basal cell carcinoma,” J. Biomed. Opt., 14 (5), 054031 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.3251053 JBOPFO 1083-3668 Google Scholar

48. 

I. Stamenkovic, “ Matrix metalloproteinases in tumor invasion and metastasis,” Sem. Cancer Biol., 10 (6), 415 –453 (2000). http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/scbi.2000.0379 SECBE7 1044-579X Google Scholar

49. 

A. S. H. Karenet al., “Raman microspectroscopic model of human breast tissue: implications for breast cancer diagnosis in vivo,” J. Raman Spectrosc., 3 (7), 552 –563 (2002). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrs.877 JRSPAF 0377-0486 Google Scholar

50. 

A. Beljebbaret al., “Identification of Raman spectroscopic markers for the characterization of normal and adenocarcinomatous colonic tissues,” Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol., 72 (3), 255 –264 (2009). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2009.09.004 CCRHEC Google Scholar

51. 

M. S. Bergholtet al., “In vivo diagnosis of gastric cancer using Raman endoscopy and ant colony optimization techniques,” Int. J. Cancer., 128 (11), 2673 –2680 (2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.v128.11 IJCNAW 1097-0215 Google Scholar

52. 

B. K. Lavineet al., “Raman spectroscopy and genetic algorithms for the classification of wood types,” Appl. Spectrosc., 55 (8), 960 –966 (2001). http://dx.doi.org/10.1366/0003702011953108 APSPA4 0003-7028 Google Scholar
© 2012 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) 0091-3286/2012/$25.00 © 2012 SPIE
Shaoxin Li, Qiu-Yan Chen, Yan-Jiao Zhang, Zhiming Liu, Honglian Xiong, Zhouyi Guo, Hai-Qiang Mai, and Songhao Liu "Detection of nasopharyngeal cancer using confocal Raman spectroscopy and genetic algorithm technique," Journal of Biomedical Optics 17(12), 125003 (3 December 2012). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.17.12.125003
Published: 3 December 2012
Lens.org Logo
CITATIONS
Cited by 28 scholarly publications and 2 patents.
Advertisement
Advertisement
RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS
Get copyright permission  Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace
KEYWORDS
Raman spectroscopy

Tissues

Diagnostics

Cancer

Confocal microscopy

Algorithm development

Genetic algorithms

Back to Top