Matthew D Risi1, Andrew R Rouse, Setsuko K Chambers, Kenneth D Hatch, Wenxin Zheng, Arthur F Gmitro. 1. *College of Optical Sciences, University of Arizona; †University of Arizona Cancer Center; and Departments of ‡Medical Imaging, §Obstetrics and Gynecology, and ∥Pathology, College of Medicine, and ¶Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of a confocal fluorescence microlaparoscope for in vivo detection of ovarian cancer. METHODS/MATERIALS: Seventy-one patients scheduled for open or laparoscopic oophorectomy were consented for the imaging study. High-resolution confocal microlaparoscopic images of the epithelial surface of the ovary were acquired in vivo or ex vivo after tissue staining using acridine orange. Standard histologic evaluation of extracted tissue samples was performed and used as the gold standard of disease diagnosis. Trained human observers from different specialties viewed the microlaparoscopic images, rating each image on a 6-point scale ranging from "definitely not cancer" to "definitely cancer." Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated using these scores and the gold standard histopathologic diagnosis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated as a performance metric. RESULTS: Forty-five of the consented patients were used in the final evaluation study. From these 45 patients, 63 tissue locations or samples were identified and imaged with the confocal microlaparoscope. Twenty of the samples were high-grade cancers, and the remaining 43 samples were normal or noncancerous. Twenty-three of the samples were imaged in vivo, and the remaining 40 samples were imaged ex vivo. The average AUC score and standard error (SE) for detection of cancer in all images were 0.88 and 0.02, respectively. An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare AUC scores for in vivo and ex vivo conditions. No statistically significant difference in the AUC score for in vivo (AUC, 0.850; SE, 0.049) and ex vivo (AUC, 0.888; SE, 0.027) conditions was observed, t(6) = 1.318, P = 0.2355. CONCLUSIONS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve scores indicate that high-resolution in vivo images obtained by the confocal laparoscope can distinguish between normal and malignant ovarian surface epithelium. In addition, in vivo performance is similar to that which can be obtained from ex vivo tissue.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of a confocal fluorescence microlaparoscope for in vivo detection of ovarian cancer. METHODS/MATERIALS: Seventy-one patients scheduled for open or laparoscopic oophorectomy were consented for the imaging study. High-resolution confocal microlaparoscopic images of the epithelial surface of the ovary were acquired in vivo or ex vivo after tissue staining using acridine orange. Standard histologic evaluation of extracted tissue samples was performed and used as the gold standard of disease diagnosis. Trained human observers from different specialties viewed the microlaparoscopic images, rating each image on a 6-point scale ranging from "definitely not cancer" to "definitely cancer." Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated using these scores and the gold standard histopathologic diagnosis. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated as a performance metric. RESULTS: Forty-five of the consented patients were used in the final evaluation study. From these 45 patients, 63 tissue locations or samples were identified and imaged with the confocal microlaparoscope. Twenty of the samples were high-grade cancers, and the remaining 43 samples were normal or noncancerous. Twenty-three of the samples were imaged in vivo, and the remaining 40 samples were imaged ex vivo. The average AUC score and standard error (SE) for detection of cancer in all images were 0.88 and 0.02, respectively. An independent-samples t test was conducted to compare AUC scores for in vivo and ex vivo conditions. No statistically significant difference in the AUC score for in vivo (AUC, 0.850; SE, 0.049) and ex vivo (AUC, 0.888; SE, 0.027) conditions was observed, t(6) = 1.318, P = 0.2355. CONCLUSIONS: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve scores indicate that high-resolution in vivo images obtained by the confocal laparoscope can distinguish between normal and malignant ovarian surface epithelium. In addition, in vivo performance is similar to that which can be obtained from ex vivo tissue.
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Liebwin Gossner; Martin Goetz; Alexandra Dahlmann; Michael Vieth; Manfred Stolte; Arthur Hoffman; Michael Jung; Bernhard Nafe; Peter R Galle; Markus F Neurath Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2006-07-13 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Saurabh Srivastava; Jeffrey J Rodríguez; Andrew R Rouse; Molly A Brewer; Arthur F Gmitro Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Gooitzen M van Dam; George Themelis; Lucia M A Crane; Niels J Harlaar; Rick G Pleijhuis; Wendy Kelder; Athanasios Sarantopoulos; Johannes S de Jong; Henriette J G Arts; Ate G J van der Zee; Joost Bart; Philip S Low; Vasilis Ntziachristos Journal: Nat Med Date: 2011-09-18 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Ralf Kiesslich; Juergen Burg; Michael Vieth; Janina Gnaendiger; Meike Enders; Peter Delaney; Adrian Polglase; Wendy McLaren; Daniela Janell; Steven Thomas; Bernhard Nafe; Peter R Galle; Markus F Neurath Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Anthony A Tanbakuchi; Joshua A Udovich; Andrew R Rouse; Kenneth D Hatch; Arthur F Gmitro Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-10-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Thomas D Wang; Shai Friedland; Peyman Sahbaie; Roy Soetikno; Pei-Lin Hsiung; Jonathan T C Liu; James M Crawford; Christopher H Contag Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-10-23 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Anthony A Tanbakuchi; Andrew R Rouse; Joshua A Udovich; Kenneth D Hatch; Arthur F Gmitro Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Michael C Phung; Andrew R Rouse; Jayce Pangilinan; Robert C Bell; Erika R Bracamonte; Sharfuddeen Mashi; Arthur F Gmitro; Benjamin R Lee Journal: Asian J Urol Date: 2019-12-24
Authors: Tyler H Tate; Brenda Baggett; Photini F S Rice; Jennifer Watson Koevary; Gabriel V Orsinger; Ariel C Nymeyer; Weston A Welge; Kathylynn Saboda; Denise J Roe; Kenneth D Hatch; Setsuko K Chambers; Urs Utzinger; Jennifer Kehlet Barton Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Vadim A Byvaltsev; Liudmila A Bardonova; Naomi R Onaka; Roman A Polkin; Sergey V Ochkal; Valerij V Shepelev; Marat A Aliyev; Alexander A Potapov Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 6.244