| Literature DB >> 30839534 |
Le Qiu1, Ram Chuttani2, Douglas K Pleskow2, Vladimir Turzhitsky1, Umar Khan1, Yuri N Zakharov1, Lei Zhang1, Tyler M Berzin2, Eric U Yee3, Mandeep S Sawhney2, Yunping Li4, Edward Vitkin1, Jeffrey D Goldsmith3, Irving Itzkan1, Lev T Perelman1,2,5.
Abstract
Esophageal adenocarcinoma is the most rapidly growing cancer in America. Although the prognosis after diagnosis is unfavorable, the chance of a successful outcome increases tremendously if detected early while the lesion is still dysplastic. Unfortunately, the present standard-of-care, endoscopic surveillance, has major limitations, since dysplasia is invisible, often focal, and systematic biopsies typically sample less than one percent of the esophageal lining and therefore easily miss malignancies. To solve this problem we developed a multispectral light scattering endoscopic imaging system. It surveys the entire esophageal lining and accurately detects subcellular dysplastic changes. The system combines light scattering spectroscopy, which detects and identifies invisible dysplastic sites by analyzing light scattered from epithelial cells, with rapid scanning of the entire esophageal lining using a collimated broadband light beam delivered by an endoscopically compatible fiber optic probe. Here we report the results of the first comprehensive multispectral imaging study, conducted as part of routine endoscopic procedures performed on patients with suspected dysplasia. In a double-blind study that characterized the system's ability to serve as a screening tool, 55 out of 57 patients were diagnosed correctly. In addition, a smaller double-blind comparison of the multispectral data in 24 patients with subsequent pathology at locations where 411 biopsies were collected yielded an accuracy of 90% in detecting individual locations of dysplasia, demonstrating the capability of this method to serve as a guide for biopsy.Entities:
Keywords: biophotonics; endoscopic multispectral imaging; light scattering spectroscopy; noninvasive cancer detection
Year: 2018 PMID: 30839534 PMCID: PMC6060057 DOI: 10.1038/lsa.2017.174
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Light Sci Appl ISSN: 2047-7538 Impact factor: 17.782
Figure 1Polarization gating light scattering spectroscopy. Barrett's esophagus tissue is illuminated with polarized light emitted from the polarized scanning fiber optic probe. The backscattered light from the cells in the superficial layer of columnar epithelium is polarized parallel to the incoming light, while the light reflected from the deeper tissues becomes depolarized, containing equal amounts of parallel and perpendicular polarizations. Subtracting the two polarizations cancels out the contribution of deeper tissues and the resulting signal is proportional to the signal from the epithelium, which contains the information about early precancerous changes.
Figure 2Endoscopic multispectral scanning imaging system. The photograph on the left shows the system on a cart with its scanning probe inserted into the working channel of an Olympus GIF-H180 endoscope. The schematic on the right shows the exploded view of the polarized scanning probe tip. When assembled the parabolic mirror is opposite the quartz window.
Figure 3Nuclear size distributions for one dysplastic and one non-dysplastic sites in Barrett’s esophagus. (a) Red and pink regions of the map indicate areas suspicious for dysplasia based on nuclear size distributions extracted from the backscattering spectra for each individual spatial location, with Δ below 0.05 colored dark green, 0.05–0.10 colored light green, 0.10–0.15 colored pink, and above 0.15 as red. The circles indicate the locations of two biopsies histologically diagnosed as non-dysplastic biopsy (NDB) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and marked with green and red circles, respectively. (b) Histology images from biopsies collected in the marked locations, with NDB on the left and HGD on the right (scale bar is 100 μm). Comparison of the nuclear size distribution obtained from the quantitative morphometric measurements (circles) from biopsies presented in panel b and reconstructed from the in vivo LSS data (solid lines) collected at the same NDB (c) and HGD (d) locations.
Figure 4Biopsy guidance with feature tracking based virtual marks. (a) Flow chart of the biopsy guidance algorithm. (b) Video frame with location suspicious for HGD highlighted with the LSS beam and marked with red empty circle. (c) LSS diagnostic map of the corresponding 2-cm long BE section. (d) Same video frame as in B but with three trackable features identified by the algorithm and indicated with green triangles. Three to six trackable features are identified on a frame with a location suspicious for HGD. (e) Location suspicious for HGD is triangulated and tracked on every consecutive video frame (red solid circle). (f) Examples of the video frames with three locations suspicious for HGD (marked with red, yellow, and violet solid circles) and four to seven trackable features per frame (green triangles). GEJ—gastroesophageal junction.
Figure 5Clinical procedure with endoscopic multispectral scanning imaging system. The clinical system contains a probe that is inserted into the endoscope accessory channel. The fiber probe performs rapid automated rotational/longitudinal scanning of the entire BE segment.
Figure 6Diagnostic flow chart. Diagnostic flow chart of endoscopic multispectral scanning imaging system performance in BE patients. EGD indicates esophagogastroduodenoscopy.
Figure 7Pseudo-color maps highlighting areas suspicious for dysplasia in 24 subjects. (a) Maps produced from LSS data are overlaid with circles indicating biopsy sites and confirmed pathology. The vertical direction indicates the angle of rotation from the start of each rotary scan; the horizontal direction indicates the distance from upper incisors. Green map areas of various shades represent epithelium unlikely for HGD and red and pink map areas represent areas suspicious for HGD, as determined by LSS. Red and green circles indicate biopsy sites of HGD and non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, respectively, as determined by pathology. Maps (b–d) are typical maps and biopsies for subjects with no areas suspicious for HGD, focal HGD suspicious areas, and significant HGD suspicious areas, respectively.
LSS endoscopic imaging performance comparison vs. recently commercialized optical technologies to provide biopsy guidance for detecting dysplasia in BE
| Technique | Method | Sites | Patients | Sensitivity % | Specificity % | Operator Independent | Entire Surface | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFI | B | 74 | 63 | 56/75** | 78/76** | √ | [ | |
| AFI+HRE | B | 74 | 63 | 64/84** | 83/85** | [ | ||
| OCT | B | 177 | 55 | 83 | 75 | √ | [ | |
| B | 314 | 33 | 68 | 82 | [ | |||
| CLE | B/P | 4008* | 709 | 70/89 | 91/75 | [ | ||
| B/P | 3493* | 346 | 58/79 | 90/90 | [ | |||
| LSS | B/P | 411 | 57 | 88/96 | 91/97 | √ | √ | This study |
B—per-biopsy evaluation; P—per-patient evaluation; AFI—autofluorescence imaging; AFI+HRE− autofluorescence imaging combined with high resolution endoscopy; OCT—optical coherence tomography; CLE—confocal laser endomicroscopy; LSS—light scattering spectroscopy; *meta-analysis; **non-experts/experts.