| Literature DB >> 26907742 |
Ryan M Nolan1,2, Steven G Adie3,4, Marina Marjanovic5, Eric J Chaney6, Fredrick A South7,8, Guillermo L Monroy9,10, Nathan D Shemonski11,12,13, Sarah J Erickson-Bhatt14, Ryan L Shelton15,16, Andrew J Bower17,18, Douglas G Simpson19,20, Kimberly A Cradock21, Z George Liu22, Partha S Ray23,24, Stephen A Boppart25,26,27,28.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of lymph node (LN) status is an important factor for detecting metastasis and thereby staging breast cancer. Currently utilized clinical techniques involve the surgical disruption and resection of lymphatic structure, whether nodes or axillary contents, for histological examination. While reasonably effective at detection of macrometastasis, the majority of the resected lymph nodes are histologically negative. Improvements need to be made to better detect micrometastasis, minimize or eliminate lymphatic disruption complications, and provide immediate and accurate intraoperative feedback for in vivo cancer staging to better guide surgery.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26907742 PMCID: PMC4763478 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-016-2194-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Summary of patient demographics and clinical characteristics
| Characteristic | Imaged | Used | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total # of subjects | 51 | 42 | 82 % |
| Age, years | |||
| Mean | 61.9 | 62.6 | |
| Stand. Dev. | 12.3 | 11.9 | |
| Range | 34–84 | 38–84 | |
| ≤ 65 | 29 | 23 | |
| > 65 | 22 | 19 | |
| Tumor type | |||
| Ductal | 43 | 35 | 81 % |
| DCIS | 34 | 28 | |
| IDC | 36 | 29 | |
| Lobular | 13 | 12 | 92 % |
| LCIS | 10 | 9 | |
| ILC | 10 | 9 | |
| Micropapillary | 5 | 4 | 80 % |
| Multi-type | 9 | 8 | 89 % |
| Tumor size (greatest dimension) | |||
| < 1 cm | 15 | 14 | 93 % |
| 1–2 cm | 23 | 18 | 78 % |
| > 2 cm | 13 | 10 | 77 % |
| Tissue imaged | |||
| Lymph nodes | 128 | 76 | 59 % |
| Imaging sites | 184 | 99 | 54 % |
| Histopathology + nodes | 118 | 17 | 14 % |
| Lymph node metastasis size | |||
| (greatest dimension) | |||
| ≤ 2 mm | 1 | 0 | 0 % |
| > 2 mm | 19 | 17 | 89 % |
DCIS ductal carcinoma in situ, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma, LCIS lobular carcinoma in situ, ILC invasive lobular carcinoma
Fig. 1OCT system design for intraoperative assessment of ex vivo human lymph nodes for metastasis. a Schematic diagram and b photo of the OCT system. The red arrows indicate the path of near-infrared light travels along the optical fibers from the superluminescent diode (SLD) source, through the 50/50 fiber coupler (FC), splitting between the sample arm or reference arm. The reflected light from the tissue sample and the reference mirror is collected by the optical system, and travels back through the optical fibers and 50/50 FC to the line-scan detector in the spectrometer, the signal output of which was used to calculate the 3D-OCT images
Fig. 2The decision tree diagram used for analyzing 3D-OCT images. A brief, sample training image set and this decision tree were developed for providing the blinded readers with direction for identifying native and abnormal lymph node anatomical structure, as well as possible image artifacts from imaging limitations in surgery. Each trained reader classified the OCT datasets as either “metastatic” or “non-metastatic”
Fig. 3The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve illustrates the comparison of the true and false positive rates as the minimum “positive” vote necessary to label a lymph node metastatic. The three criteria are a single vote (1:3), majority vote (2:3) and unanimous vote (3:3). Majority voting, initially presumed, proved to be the most effective method for trained reader post-operative OCT analysis, since, of the three data points, it is the furthest from the “random guess” (50:50) line and closest to the “perfect classification” limit. Each of the individual OCT reader data are shown for comparison
Fig. 4Representative intraoperative OCT (a & c) and corresponding histopathology (b & d) images of a normal, non-metastatic (top) and cancerous, metastatic (bottom) human lymph node. In a & b, normal lymph node structures, such as the capsule, cortex, follicles and germinal centers, as well as adipose, can be identified in both images. In c & d, metastatic invasion of cancer cells disrupts the normal lymph node cortex structure and can disrupt identification of follicles and germinal centers. All scale bars: 0.5 mm
Fig. 5Representative intraoperative OCT (a & c) and corresponding histopathology (b & d) images of false positive (top) and false negative (bottom) cases. False positives can result from crush artifact, which mimics the bright white (high) OCT signal intensity of metastatic cancer cell invasion (Fig. 4c). False negatives can result from thick overlying adipose, which reduces imaging depth penetration, affects optical beam quality and resolution, and, consequently, underlying lymph node signal intensity. Some of the overlying adipose in the histology (d) is missing, most likely disrupted and/or lost during tissue processing. All scale bars: 0.5 mm