OBJECTIVE: Currently no efficient and reliable technique exists to routinely assess surgical margins during a radical prostatectomy. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been reported as a potential technique to provide surgeons with real-time intraoperative margin assessment. In addition to providing a quantified measure of margin status, a co-registered electrical impedance tomography (EIT) image presented on a surgeon's workstation could add value to the margin assessment process. APPROACH: To investigate this, we conducted a comparative study between EIS and EIT to evaluate the potential these technologies might have for margin assessment. EIS and EIT data was acquired from ex vivo human prostates using a multi-electrode endoscopic impedance acquisition probe. MAIN RESULTS: EIS and EIT show good predictive performance with a 0.76 and 0.80 area-under-curve (AUC), respectively, when considering discrete frequencies only. A machine learning (ML) algorithm is implemented to combine features, which improves the AUCs of EIS and EIT to 0.84 and 0.85, respectively. Single-step EIT takes significantly less time to reconstruct than multi-step EIT, yet provides similarly accurate classification results, making the single-step approach a potential candidate for real-time margin assessment. While the ML-based approach clearly exhibits benefits as compared to the single feature assessment, the decision to use EIS versus EIT is unclear since each approach performs better for different subsets of tissue classifications. SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented in this paper corroborate our previous studies and present the strongest evidence yet that an intraoperative-capable impedance probe can be used to distinguish benign from malignant prostate tissues. An in vivo study with a large cohort will be necessary to definitively determine the preferred approach and to show the clinical effectiveness of using this technology for margin assessment.
OBJECTIVE: Currently no efficient and reliable technique exists to routinely assess surgical margins during a radical prostatectomy. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) has been reported as a potential technique to provide surgeons with real-time intraoperative margin assessment. In addition to providing a quantified measure of margin status, a co-registered electrical impedance tomography (EIT) image presented on a surgeon's workstation could add value to the margin assessment process. APPROACH: To investigate this, we conducted a comparative study between EIS and EIT to evaluate the potential these technologies might have for margin assessment. EIS and EIT data was acquired from ex vivo human prostates using a multi-electrode endoscopic impedance acquisition probe. MAIN RESULTS: EIS and EIT show good predictive performance with a 0.76 and 0.80 area-under-curve (AUC), respectively, when considering discrete frequencies only. A machine learning (ML) algorithm is implemented to combine features, which improves the AUCs of EIS and EIT to 0.84 and 0.85, respectively. Single-step EIT takes significantly less time to reconstruct than multi-step EIT, yet provides similarly accurate classification results, making the single-step approach a potential candidate for real-time margin assessment. While the ML-based approach clearly exhibits benefits as compared to the single feature assessment, the decision to use EIS versus EIT is unclear since each approach performs better for different subsets of tissue classifications. SIGNIFICANCE: The results presented in this paper corroborate our previous studies and present the strongest evidence yet that an intraoperative-capable impedance probe can be used to distinguish benign from malignant prostate tissues. An in vivo study with a large cohort will be necessary to definitively determine the preferred approach and to show the clinical effectiveness of using this technology for margin assessment.
Authors: D Haemmerich; R Ozkan; S Tungjitkusolmun; J Z Tsai; D M Mahvi; S T Staelin; J G Webster Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Yuqing Wan; Andrea Borsic; John Heaney; John Seigne; Alan Schned; Michael Baker; Shaun Wason; Alex Hartov; Ryan Halter Journal: Med Phys Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Georg Salomon; Thorsten Hess; Andreas Erbersdobler; Christian Eichelberg; Siegfried Greschner; Andrey N Sobchuk; Anna K Korolik; Nicolai A Nemkovich; Jürgen Schreiber; Martin Herms; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-03-07 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Júlia Balog; László Sasi-Szabó; James Kinross; Matthew R Lewis; Laura J Muirhead; Kirill Veselkov; Reza Mirnezami; Balázs Dezső; László Damjanovich; Ara Darzi; Jeremy K Nicholson; Zoltán Takáts Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: Angela A Pathiraja; Ruwan A Weerakkody; Alexander C von Roon; Paul Ziprin; Richard Bayford Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 5.531