4.1 Article

Optical coherence tomography for presurgical delineation of basal cell carcinomas on the face-A comparison with histopathology

期刊

JOURNAL OF CUTANEOUS PATHOLOGY
卷 50, 期 5, 页码 441-449

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cup.14412

关键词

basal cell carcinoma; dermatologic oncology; non-invasive imaging; optical coherence tomography; tumor delineation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the effectiveness of clinical examination, histopathology, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) in delineating the tumor margins of facial basal cell carcinomas (BCC) before surgery. The results showed that OCT and histopathology were in agreement in 86.6% of the data points collected. The study supports the use of OCT in clinical practice for aiding clinicians in preoperative delineation of BCC lesions.
Background: To minimize the risk of incomplete excision of basal cell carcinomas (BCC) the macroscopic tumor margins should be adequately defined. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a non-invasive imaging tool that can provide structural and vascular information about skin cancer lesions. The study objective was to compare the presurgical delineation of facial BCC by clinical examination, histopathology, and OCT imaging in tumors undergoing full excision.Methods: Ten patients with BCC lesions on the face were examined clinically, with OCT and histopathology at 3-mm intervals, from the clinical lesion border and beyond the resection line. The OCT scans were evaluated blinded and a delineation estimate of each BCC lesion was made. The results were compared to the clinical and histopathologic results.Results: OCT evaluations and histopathology were in agreement in 86.6% of the collected data points. In three cases the OCT scans estimated a reduction of the tumor size compared to the clinical tumor border set by the surgeon.Conclusion: The results of this study support the notion that OCT can have a role in the clinical daily practice by aiding clinicians in delineating BCC lesions before surgery.

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

4.1
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