4.5 Article

Direct comparison between confocal and multiphoton microscopy for rapid histopathological evaluation of unfixed human breast tissue

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL OPTICS
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

SPIE-SOC PHOTO-OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.21.12.126021

Keywords

confocal fluorescence microscopy; multiphoton microscopy; breast cancer; optical pathology

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01-CA178636-02, R01-CA075289-18, F32-CA183400-03]
  2. Air Force Office of Scientific Research AFOSR [FA9550-12-1-0551, FA9550-15-1-0473]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rapid histopathological examination of surgical specimen margins using fluorescence microscopy during breast conservation therapy has the potential to reduce the rate of positive margins on postoperative histopathology and the need for repeat surgeries. To assess the suitability of imaging modalities, we perform a direct comparison between confocal fluorescence microscopy and multiphoton microscopy for imaging unfixed tissue and compare to paraffin-embedded histology. An imaging protocol including dual channel detection of two contrast agents to implement virtual hematoxylin and eosin images is introduced that provides high quality imaging under both one and two photon excitation. Corresponding images of unfixed human breast tissue show that both confocal and multiphoton microscopy can reproduce the appearance of conventional histology without the need for physical sectioning. We further compare normal breast tissue and invasive cancer specimens imaged at multiple magnifications, and assess the effects of photobleaching for both modalities using the staining protocol. The results demonstrate that confocal fluorescence microscopy is a promising and cost-effective alternative to multiphoton microscopy for rapid histopathological evaluation of ex vivo breast tissue. (C) 2016 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available