AIMS: To evaluate Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy as new tool for screening of cervical cancer in comparison with cervical cytology. METHODS: A total of 800 cervical scrapings were taken by cytobrush and placed in ThinPrep medium. The samples were dried over infrared transparent matrix. Beams of infrared light were directed at the dried samples at frequency of 4000 to 400 cm(-1). The absorption data were produced using a Spectrum BX II FTIR spectrometer. Data were compared with the reference absorption data of known samples using FTIR spectroscopy software. FTIR spectroscopy was compared with cytology (gold standard). RESULTS: FTIR spectroscopy could differentiate normal from abnormal cervical cells in the samples examined. The sensitivity was 85%, specificity 91%, positive predictive value 19.5% and negative predictive value of 99.5%. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that FTIR spectroscopy could be used as an alternative method for screening for cervical cancer.
AIMS: To evaluate Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy as new tool for screening of cervical cancer in comparison with cervical cytology. METHODS: A total of 800 cervical scrapings were taken by cytobrush and placed in ThinPrep medium. The samples were dried over infrared transparent matrix. Beams of infrared light were directed at the dried samples at frequency of 4000 to 400 cm(-1). The absorption data were produced using a Spectrum BX II FTIR spectrometer. Data were compared with the reference absorption data of known samples using FTIR spectroscopy software. FTIR spectroscopy was compared with cytology (gold standard). RESULTS: FTIR spectroscopy could differentiate normal from abnormal cervical cells in the samples examined. The sensitivity was 85%, specificity 91%, positive predictive value 19.5% and negative predictive value of 99.5%. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that FTIR spectroscopy could be used as an alternative method for screening for cervical cancer.
Authors: Abegail Santillan; Rock Christian Tomas; Ruth Bangaoil; Rolando Lopez; Maria Honolina Gomez; Allan Fellizar; Antonio Lim; Lorenzo Abanilla; Maria Cristina Ramos; Leonardo Guevarra; Pia Marie Albano Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Paul D Lewis; Keir E Lewis; Robin Ghosal; Sion Bayliss; Amanda J Lloyd; John Wills; Ruth Godfrey; Philip Kloer; Luis A J Mur Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-11-23 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Vinay K Katukuri; John Hargrove; Sharon J Miller; Kinan Rahal; John Y Kao; Rolf Wolters; Ellen M Zimmermann; Thomas D Wang Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Ketan Gajjar; Abdullah A Ahmadzai; George Valasoulis; Júlio Trevisan; Christina Founta; Maria Nasioutziki; Aristotelis Loufopoulos; Maria Kyrgiou; Sofia Melina Stasinou; Petros Karakitsos; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Bianca Da Gama-Rose; Pierre L Martin-Hirsch; Francis L Martin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 3.240