4.8 Article

Relation between tissue structure and imposed electrical current flow in cervical neoplasia

Journal

LANCET
Volume 355, Issue 9207, Pages 892-895

Publisher

LANCET LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)09095-9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background When an electrical potential is applied to human tissue, the pattern of the resulting current flow is determined by the shapes, arrangements, and internal structure of the tissue cells. By measurement of the electrical current patterns over a range of frequencies, and use of an inverse modelling procedure, electrical variables describing the tissue structure can be calculated, We used this method to develop a screening technique for the detection of cervical precancers. Methods We used a pencil probe (diameter 5 mm) to measure electrical impedance spectra from eight points on the cervix in 124 women with abnormal cervical smears. Variables that should be sensitive to the expected tissue changes were calculated. These were compared with the colposcopic results. Findings The measured electrical impedance changes were those predicted on the basis of the expected tissue structures. Measurements made on normal squamous tissues were well separated from those made on precancerous tissues. We constructed receiver-operating-characteristic curves, comparing measurements made on normal tissue and that showing cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3; the area under the curve was 0.951. These groups of women could be separated with a sensitivity of 0.92 and a specificity of 0.92. Interpretation Characteristics of the electrical impedance spectra of tissues can be explained by changes in cell arrangements (layering) and in the size of the nuclei. This relation opens the way to deriving tissue structure from electrical impedance spectral measurements. We show that this approach can be used to give good separation of normal and precancerous cervical tissues.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available