| Literature DB >> 31998640 |
Shayan Fakurnejad1, Giri Krishnan1,2, Stan van Keulen1,3, Naoki Nishio1, Andrew C Birkeland1, Fred M Baik1, Michael J Kaplan1, A Dimitrios Colevas4, Nynke S van den Berg1, Eben L Rosenthal1, Brock A Martin5.
Abstract
Objective: Complete surgical resection is the standard of care for treatment of oral cancer although the positive margin rate remains 15-30%. Tissue sampling from the resected specimen and from the wound bed for frozen section analysis (FSA) remains the mainstay for intraoperative margin assessment but is subject to sampling error and can require the processing of multiple samples. We sought to understand if an ex vivo imaging strategy using a tumor-targeted fluorescently labeled antibody could accurately identify the closest peripheral margin on the mucosal surface of resected tumor specimen, so that this "sentinel margin" could be used to guide pathological sampling. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: antibody; fluorescence imaging; head and neck cancer; margins; molecular imaging; near-infrared; oral cavity
Year: 2020 PMID: 31998640 PMCID: PMC6965069 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.01476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
Figure 1Overview of workflow. Representative brightfield (A) and closed-field fluorescence image (B) of a resected specimen. (C) Fluorescent image with mask applied circumferentially around tumor margin. Specimen divided into 4 quadrants labeled Q1−4 clockwise from 0 degrees. (D,F) H&E slides taken from regions of highest fluorescence intensity and control region of low fluorescence intensity with tumor and normal mucosa delineated. (E) Graph illustrating corresponding fluorescence intensities to peak and control at location on circumferential mask.
Patient and tumor characteristics.
| 1 | 62 | M | Buccal | T2N0Mx | II | N | N | N |
| 2 | 46 | M | Lateral tongue | T1N0Mx | I–II | Y | Y | N |
| 3 | 69 | F | Buccal | T1N0Mx | I–II | N | N | N |
| 4 | 65 | F | Buccal | T2N2bMx | II | Y | Y | N |
| 5 | 70 | F | Buccal | T3N0Mx | I | N | Y | N |
Tumor stage was the pathologic staging, and tumor grade was the histologic grading (I: well-differentiated, II: moderately-differentiated, III: poorly-differentiated). Smoking and alcohol use were considered “yes” if the patient had a prior history or was an active user. LVI: lymphovascular invasion. N, No; Y, Yes; Unk, unknown status.
Figure 2Margin distance by fluorescent signal. (A) Graph showing increase in margin distance at control regions when compared to sampled regions of highest fluorescence intensity. Representative brightfield image of resected tumor specimen (B) taken from buccal region in patient, seen in (D). (C) Corresponding closed-field fluorescent image of resected tumor specimen with black dotted line indicating overlaid circumferential mask, white dashed line indicating slice from which H&E slide (E) was taken, highlighting the difference in margin distance at the periphery between control region and region of highest fluorescence intensity. (F) High resolution image taken from Odyssey demonstrating fluorescence distribution within microscopic section. ***p < 0.0001.
Figure 3(A) Box and whisker plots demonstrating margin distance by fluorescent signal. (B) Graph demonstrating margin distance trends from region of highest fluorescence intensity to second highest fluorescence intensity, to control region per patient. ***p < 0.0001.