4.4 Article

Assessment of Sentinel Node Biopsies With Full-Field Optical Coherence Tomography

期刊

TECHNOLOGY IN CANCER RESEARCH & TREATMENT
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 266-274

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1533034615575817

关键词

FFOCT; sentinel lymph nodes; metastasis; breast

类别

资金

  1. Institut National du Cancer (INCA/ONCO-DIAG) [2009-1-PLBIO16-ESPCI-1]
  2. foundation Pierre Gilles de Gennes pour la recherche

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current techniques for the intraoperative analysis of sentinel lymph nodes during breast cancer surgery present drawbacks such as time and tissue consumption. Full-field optical coherence tomography is a novel noninvasive, high-resolution, fast imaging technique. This study investigated the use of full-field optical coherence tomography as an alternative technique for the intraoperative analysis of sentinel lymph nodes. Seventy-one axillary lymph nodes from 38 patients at Tenon Hospital were imaged minutes after excision with full-field optical coherence tomography in the pathology laboratory, before being handled for histological analysis. A pathologist performed a blind diagnosis (benign/malignant), based on the full-field optical coherence tomography images alone, which resulted in a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 83% (n = 65 samples). Regular feedback was given during the blind diagnosis, with thorough analysis of the images, such that features of normal and suspect nodes were identified in the images and compared with histology. A nonmedically trained imaging expert also performed a blind diagnosis aided by the reading criteria defined by the pathologist, which resulted in 85% sensitivity and 90% specificity (n = 71 samples). The number of false positives of the pathologist was reduced by 3 in a second blind reading a few months later. These results indicate that following adequate training, full-field optical coherence tomography can be an effective noninvasive diagnostic tool for extemporaneous sentinel node biopsy qualification.

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

4.4
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