Correlation coefficient mapping has been applied to intrinsic fluorescence spectra of colonic tissue for the purpose of cancer diagnosis. Fluorescence emission spectra were collected of 57 colonic tissue sites in a range of 4 physiological conditions: normal (29), hyperplastic (2), adenomatous (5), and cancerous tissues (21). The sample-sample correlation was used to examine the ability of correlation coefficient mapping to determine tissue disease state. The correlation coefficient map indicates two main categories of samples. These categories were found to relate to disease states of the tissue. Sensitivity, selectivity, predictive value positive, and predictive value negative for differentiation between normal tissue and all other categories were all above 92%. This was found to be similar to, or higher than, tissue classification using existing methods of data reduction. Wavelength-wavelength correlation among the samples highlights areas of importance for tissue classification. The two-dimensional correlation map reveals absorption by NADH and hemoglobin in the samples as negative correlation, an effect not obvious from the one-dimensional fluorescence spectra alone. The integrity of tissue was examined in a time series of spectra of a single tissue sample taken after tissue resection. The wavelength-wavelength correlation coefficient map shows the areas of significance for each fluorophore and their relation to each other. NADH displays negative correlation to collagen and FAD, from the absorption of emission or fluorescence resonance energy transfer. The wavelength-wavelength correlation map for the decay set also clearly shows that there are only three fluorophores of importance in the samples, by the well-defined pattern of the map. The sample-sample correlation coefficient map reveals the changes over time and their impact on tissue classification. Correlation coefficient mapping proves to be an effective method for sample classification and cancer detection.
Analytical Chemistry 04/2005; 77(5):1368-75. DOI:10.1021/ac049074+ · 5.83 Impact Factor