4.5 Article

Optical Coherence Tomography Allows for the Reliable Identification of Laryngeal Epithelial Dysplasia and for Precise Biopsy: A Clinicopathological Study of 61 Patients Undergoing Microlaryngoscopy

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 120, 期 10, 页码 1964-1970

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.21057

关键词

Optical coherence tomography; larynx; dysplasia; sensitivity; specificity; premalignant lesion; time domain optical coherence tomography; spectral domain optical coherence tomography

资金

  1. DFG [Transregio 37]
  2. Local government of Schleswig-Holstein, Germany [HWT 2007-14 H]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: A newly developed microscope-based spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) device and an endoscope-based time-domain OCT (TD-OCT) were used to assess the inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of benign and dysplastic laryngeal epithelial lesions. Study Design: Prospective study. Methods: OCT during microlaryngoscopy was done on 35 patients with an endoscope-based TD-OCT, and on 26 patients by an SD-OCT system integrated into an operating microscope. Biopsies were taken from microscopically suspicious lesions allowing comparative study of OCT images and histology. Results: Thickness of the epithelium was seen to be the main criterion for degree of dysplasia. The inter-rater reliability for two observers was found to be kappa 0.74 (P <.001) for OCT. OCT provided test outcomes for differentiation between benign laryngeal lesions and dysplasia/CIS with sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 89%, PPV of 85%, NPV of 91%, and predictive accuracy of 88%. However, because of the limited penetration depth of the laser light primarily in hyperkeratotic lesions (thickness above 1.5 mm), the basal cell layer was no longer visible, precluding reliable assessment of such lesions. Conclusions: OCT allows for a fairly accurate assessment of benign and dysplastic laryngeal epithelial lesion and greatly facilitates the taking of precise biopsies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据