RATIONALE: Lung carcinoma diagnosis on tissue biopsy can be challenging because of insufficient tumor and lack of architectural information. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a high-resolution imaging modality that visualizes tissue microarchitecture in volumes orders of magnitude larger than biopsy. It has been proposed that OCT could potentially replace tissue biopsy. OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine whether OCT could replace histology in diagnosing lung carcinomas. We develop and validate OCT interpretation criteria for common primary lung carcinomas: adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and poorly differentiated carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 82 ex vivo tumor samples were included in a blinded assessment with 3 independent readers. Readers were trained on the OCT criteria, and applied these criteria to diagnose adenocarcinoma, SCC, or poorly differentiated carcinoma in an OCT validation dataset. After a 7-month period, the readers repeated the training and validation dataset interpretation. An independent pathologist reviewed corresponding histology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The average accuracy achieved by the readers was 82.6% (range, 73.7-94.7%). The sensitivity and specificity for adenocarcinoma were 80.3% (65.7-91.4%) and 88.6% (80.5-97.6%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for SCC were 83.3% (70.0-100.0%) and 87.0% (75.0-96.5%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for poorly differentiated carcinoma were 85.7% (81.0-95.2%) and 97.6% (92.9-100.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although these results are encouraging, they indicate that OCT cannot replace histology in the diagnosis of lung carcinomas. However, OCT has potential to aid in diagnosing lung carcinomas as a complement to tissue biopsy, particularly when insufficient tissue is available for pathology assessment.
RATIONALE: Lung carcinoma diagnosis on tissue biopsy can be challenging because of insufficient tumor and lack of architectural information. Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a high-resolution imaging modality that visualizes tissue microarchitecture in volumes orders of magnitude larger than biopsy. It has been proposed that OCT could potentially replace tissue biopsy. OBJECTIVES: We aim to determine whether OCT could replace histology in diagnosing lung carcinomas. We develop and validate OCT interpretation criteria for common primary lung carcinomas: adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and poorly differentiated carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 82 ex vivo tumor samples were included in a blinded assessment with 3 independent readers. Readers were trained on the OCT criteria, and applied these criteria to diagnose adenocarcinoma, SCC, or poorly differentiated carcinoma in an OCT validation dataset. After a 7-month period, the readers repeated the training and validation dataset interpretation. An independent pathologist reviewed corresponding histology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The average accuracy achieved by the readers was 82.6% (range, 73.7-94.7%). The sensitivity and specificity for adenocarcinoma were 80.3% (65.7-91.4%) and 88.6% (80.5-97.6%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for SCC were 83.3% (70.0-100.0%) and 87.0% (75.0-96.5%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for poorly differentiated carcinoma were 85.7% (81.0-95.2%) and 97.6% (92.9-100.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although these results are encouraging, they indicate that OCT cannot replace histology in the diagnosis of lung carcinomas. However, OCT has potential to aid in diagnosing lung carcinomas as a complement to tissue biopsy, particularly when insufficient tissue is available for pathology assessment.
Entities:
Keywords:
in vivo microscopy; lung cancer; optical biopsy guidance; optical frequency domain imaging; transbronchial fine needle aspiration guidance
Authors: John A Evans; Brett E Bouma; Jason Bressner; Milen Shishkov; Gregory Y Lauwers; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Norman S Nishioka; Guillermo J Tearney Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-09-20 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Bryden C Quirk; Robert A McLaughlin; Andrea Curatolo; Rodney W Kirk; Peter B Noble; David D Sampson Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Lida P Hariri; Matthew B Applegate; Mari Mino-Kenudson; Eugene J Mark; Brett E Bouma; Guillermo J Tearney; Melissa J Suter Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2013-01-22 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Hamid Pahlevaninezhad; Anthony M D Lee; Alexander Ritchie; Tawimas Shaipanich; Wei Zhang; Diana N Ionescu; Geoffrey Hohert; Calum MacAulay; Stephen Lam; Pierre Lane Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Oscar M Carrasco-Zevallos; Christian Viehland; Brenton Keller; Mark Draelos; Anthony N Kuo; Cynthia A Toth; Joseph A Izatt Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Labrinus van Manen; Jouke Dijkstra; Claude Boccara; Emilie Benoit; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Michalina J Gora; J Sven D Mieog Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Torre M Bydlon; Gerrit C Langhout; Ferry Lalezari; Koen J Hartemink; Jasper Nijkamp; Susan G Brouwer de Koning; Sjaak Burgers; Benno H W Hendriks; Theodoor J M Ruers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 3.240