Kiranya E Tipirneni1, Jason M Warram, Lindsay S Moore, Andrew C Prince, Esther de Boer, Aditi H Jani, Irene L Wapnir, Joseph C Liao, Michael Bouvet, Nicole K Behnke, Mary T Hawn, George A Poultsides, Alexander L Vahrmeijer, William R Carroll, Kurt R Zinn, Eben Rosenthal. 1. *Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL †Department of Otolaryngology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL ‡School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL §School of Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands ¶Department of Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA ||Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA **Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA ††Division of Orthopedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL ‡‡Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands §§Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL ¶¶Department of Otolaryngology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although fluorescence imaging is being applied to a wide range of cancers, it remains unclear which disease populations will benefit greatest. Therefore, we review the potential of this technology to improve outcomes in surgical oncology with attention to the various surgical procedures while exploring trial endpoints that may be optimal for each tumor type. BACKGROUND: For many tumors, primary treatment is surgical resection with negative margins, which corresponds to improved survival and a reduction in subsequent adjuvant therapies. Despite unfavorable effect on patient outcomes, margin positivity rate has not changed significantly over the years. Thus, patients often experience high rates of re-excision, radical resections, and overtreatment. However, fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) has brought forth new light by allowing detection of subclinical disease not readily visible with the naked eye. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of clinicatrials.gov using search terms "fluorescence," "image-guided surgery," and "near-infrared imaging" to identify trials utilizing FGS for those received on or before May 2016. INCLUSION CRITERIA: fluorescence surgery for tumor debulking, wide local excision, whole-organ resection, and peritoneal metastases. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: fluorescence in situ hybridization, fluorescence imaging for lymph node mapping, nonmalignant lesions, nonsurgical purposes, or image guidance without fluorescence. RESULTS: Initial search produced 844 entries, which was narrowed down to 68 trials. Review of literature and clinical trials identified 3 primary resection methods for utilizing FGS: (1) debulking, (2) wide local excision, and (3) whole organ excision. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FGS as a surgical guide enhancement has the potential to improve survival and quality of life outcomes for patients. And, as the number of clinical trials rise each year, it is apparent that FGS has great potential for a broad range of clinical applications.
OBJECTIVE: Although fluorescence imaging is being applied to a wide range of cancers, it remains unclear which disease populations will benefit greatest. Therefore, we review the potential of this technology to improve outcomes in surgical oncology with attention to the various surgical procedures while exploring trial endpoints that may be optimal for each tumor type. BACKGROUND: For many tumors, primary treatment is surgical resection with negative margins, which corresponds to improved survival and a reduction in subsequent adjuvant therapies. Despite unfavorable effect on patient outcomes, margin positivity rate has not changed significantly over the years. Thus, patients often experience high rates of re-excision, radical resections, and overtreatment. However, fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) has brought forth new light by allowing detection of subclinical disease not readily visible with the naked eye. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of clinicatrials.gov using search terms "fluorescence," "image-guided surgery," and "near-infrared imaging" to identify trials utilizing FGS for those received on or before May 2016. INCLUSION CRITERIA: fluorescence surgery for tumor debulking, wide local excision, whole-organ resection, and peritoneal metastases. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: fluorescence in situ hybridization, fluorescence imaging for lymph node mapping, nonmalignant lesions, nonsurgical purposes, or image guidance without fluorescence. RESULTS: Initial search produced 844 entries, which was narrowed down to 68 trials. Review of literature and clinical trials identified 3 primary resection methods for utilizing FGS: (1) debulking, (2) wide local excision, and (3) whole organ excision. CONCLUSIONS: The use of FGS as a surgical guide enhancement has the potential to improve survival and quality of life outcomes for patients. And, as the number of clinical trials rise each year, it is apparent that FGS has great potential for a broad range of clinical applications.
Authors: Jonathan C DeLong; Jeffrey M Chakedis; Ava Hosseini; Kaitlyn J Kelly; Santiago Horgan; Michael Bouvet Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Arnulf Stenzl; Maximilian Burger; Yves Fradet; Lance A Mynderse; Mark S Soloway; J Alfred Witjes; Martin Kriegmair; Alexander Karl; Yu Shen; H Barton Grossman Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Funda Meric; Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; Thomas A Buchholz; Henry M Kuerer; Gildy V Babiera; S Eva Singletary; Merrick I Ross; Frederick C Ames; Barry W Feig; Savitri Krishnamurthy; George H Perkins; Marsha D McNeese; Eric A Strom; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Quirijn R J G Tummers; Charlotte E S Hoogstins; Katja N Gaarenstroom; Cor D de Kroon; Mariette I E van Poelgeest; Jaap Vuyk; Tjalling Bosse; Vincent T H B M Smit; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Adam F Cohen; Philip S Low; Jacobus Burggraaf; Alexander L Vahrmeijer Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-05-31
Authors: Ethan Walker; Yiqiao Liu; InYoung Kim; David L Wilson; James P Basilion; Daniel L Popkin; Mark Biro; Sukanya Raj Iyer; Harib Ezaldein; Jeffrey Scott; Miesha Merati; Rachel Mistur; Bo Zhou; Brian Straight; Joshua J Yim; Matthew Bogyo; Margaret Mann Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Kimberley S Samkoe; Brent D Bates; Niki N Tselepidakis; Alisha V DSouza; Jason R Gunn; Dipak B Ramkumar; Keith D Paulsen; Brian W Pogue; Eric R Henderson Journal: J Biomed Opt Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.170
Authors: Andrew C Prince; Aditi Jani; Melissa Korb; Kiranya E Tipirneni; Benjamin B Kasten; Eben L Rosenthal; Jason M Warram Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Hannah M Hollandsworth; Thinzar M Lwin; Siamak Amirfakhri; Filemoni Filemoni; Surinder K Batra; Robert M Hoffman; Punita Dhawan; Michael Bouvet Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2019-05-09 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Stan van Keulen; Nynke S van den Berg; Naoki Nishio; Andrew Birkeland; Quan Zhou; Guolan Lu; Han-Wei Wang; Lyle Middendorf; Tymour Forouzanfar; Brock A Martin; A Dimitrios Colevas; Eben L Rosenthal Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2018-11-21 Impact factor: 5.337