OBJECTIVES: Current pancreatic cancer diagnostics cannot reliably detect early disease or distinguish it from chronic pancreatitis. We test the hypothesis that optical spectroscopy can accurately differentiate cancer from chronic pancreatitis and normal pancreas. We developed and tested clinically compatible multimodal optical spectroscopy technology to measure reflectance and endogenous fluorescence from human pancreatic tissues. METHODS: Freshly excised pancreatic tissue specimens (39 normal, 34 chronic pancreatitis, 32 adenocarcinoma) from 18 patients were optically interrogated, with site-specific histopathology representing the criterion standard. A multinomial logistic model using principal component analysis and generalized estimating equations provided statistically rigorous tissue classification. RESULTS: Optical spectroscopy distinguished pancreatic cancer from normal pancreas and chronic pancreatitis (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 82%; positive predictive value, 69%; negative predictive value, 95%; area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.89). Reflectance alone provided essentially the same classification accuracy as reflectance and fluorescence combined, suggesting that a rapid, low-cost, reduced-footprint, reflectance-based device could be deployed without notable loss of diagnostic power. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel, clinically compatible, label-free optical diagnostic technology accurately characterizes pancreatic tissues. These data provide the scientific foundation demonstrating that optical spectroscopy can potentially improve diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.
OBJECTIVES: Current pancreatic cancer diagnostics cannot reliably detect early disease or distinguish it from chronic pancreatitis. We test the hypothesis that optical spectroscopy can accurately differentiate cancer from chronic pancreatitis and normal pancreas. We developed and tested clinically compatible multimodal optical spectroscopy technology to measure reflectance and endogenous fluorescence from humanpancreatic tissues. METHODS: Freshly excised pancreatic tissue specimens (39 normal, 34 chronic pancreatitis, 32 adenocarcinoma) from 18 patients were optically interrogated, with site-specific histopathology representing the criterion standard. A multinomial logistic model using principal component analysis and generalized estimating equations provided statistically rigorous tissue classification. RESULTS: Optical spectroscopy distinguished pancreatic cancer from normal pancreas and chronic pancreatitis (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 82%; positive predictive value, 69%; negative predictive value, 95%; area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.89). Reflectance alone provided essentially the same classification accuracy as reflectance and fluorescence combined, suggesting that a rapid, low-cost, reduced-footprint, reflectance-based device could be deployed without notable loss of diagnostic power. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel, clinically compatible, label-free optical diagnostic technology accurately characterizes pancreatic tissues. These data provide the scientific foundation demonstrating that optical spectroscopy can potentially improve diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.
Authors: Stephen C Kanick; Cor van der Leest; Remco S Djamin; Andre M Janssens; Henk C Hoogsteden; Henricus J C M Sterenborg; Arjen Amelink; Joachim G J V Aerts Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Zoya Volynskaya; Abigail S Haka; Kate L Bechtel; Maryann Fitzmaurice; Robert Shenk; Nancy Wang; Jon Nazemi; Ramachandra R Dasari; Michael S Feld Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2008 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: William R Lloyd; Robert H Wilson; Seung Yup Lee; Malavika Chandra; Barbara McKenna; Diane Simeone; James Scheiman; Mary-Ann Mycek Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Changfang Zhu; Elizabeth S Burnside; Gale A Sisney; Lonie R Salkowski; Josephine M Harter; Bing Yu; Nirmala Ramanujam Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2009-03-04 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Shyam Varadarajulu; Shilpa Desai; Rhett Shirley; Martin J Heslin; Mohit Mehra; Juan P Arnoletti; Isam Eltoum; Charles M Wilcox; Selwyn M Vickers Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: G Vizzeri; R N Weinreb; A O Gonzalez-Garcia; C Bowd; F A Medeiros; P A Sample; L M Zangwill Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-03-19 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Labrinus van Manen; Iris Schmidt; Akin Inderson; Ruben D Houvast; Jurjen J Boonstra; Jouke Dijkstra; Jeanin E van Hooft; Wouter B Nagengast; Dominic J Robinson; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; J Sven D Mieog Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Seung Yup Lee; Julia M Pakela; Michael C Helton; Karthik Vishwanath; Yooree G Chung; Noah J Kolodziejski; Christopher J Stapels; Daniel R McAdams; Daniel E Fernandez; James F Christian; Jameson O'Reilly; Dana Farkas; Brent B Ward; Stephen E Feinberg; Mary-Ann Mycek Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.170