| Literature DB >> 32513179 |
Angela A Pathiraja1,2, Ruwan A Weerakkody3,4, Alexander C von Roon3,4, Paul Ziprin3,4, Richard Bayford5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical impedance technology has been well established for the last 20 years. Recently research has begun to emerge into its potential uses in the detection and diagnosis of pre-malignant and malignant conditions. The aim of this study was to systematically review the clinical application of electrical impedance technology in the detection of malignant neoplasms.Entities:
Keywords: Cancer; Detection; Diagnosis; Electrical impedance; Malignant; Neoplasms; Real-time; Spectroscopy
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32513179 PMCID: PMC7282098 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-020-02395-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Diagram showing how conduction alters with electrical and structural changes
Fig. 2PRISMA flow chart of study selection
Results of in vivo studies of pre-malignant and malignant tissue
| Author | Country | Histology of pre-/malignant tissue | No. of pre-/malignant samples | No. of normal (control) samples | AUROC | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Discriminative strengtha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tidy 2013 | UK | High-grade CIN | 87 | 109 | 0.827 | 86 | 56 | Good |
| Balasubramani 2009 | UK | High-grade CIN | 85 | 681 | 0.800 | 79 | 73 | Good |
| Brown 2000 | UK | High-grade CIN | 126 | 370 | 0.951 | 92 | 92 | Good |
| Abdul 2006 | UK | High-grade CIN | 178 | 680 | 0.652 | 74 | 53 | Moderate |
| Malvehy 2014 | Multi-centre | Melanoma, NMSC | 320 | 320 | NR | 97 | 34 | Moderate |
| Mohr 2013 | Multi-centre | Melanoma, NMSC | 126 | 126 | NR | 98 | NR | Insufficient |
| Aberg 2011 | Multi-centre | Melanoma | 59 | 59 | 0.850 | 95 | 49 | Good |
| Rocha 2017 | Multi-centre | Melanoma | 6 | 154 | NR | 100 | 70 | Good |
| Murdoch 2014 | UK | Oral SCC | 10 | 61 | 0.776 | 65 | 92 | Good |
| Sarode 2015 | India | Oral SCC | 50 | 50 | NR | NR | NR | Insufficient |
AUROC: area under receiver operating characteristic curve for discrimination between neoplasia and normal tissue; CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; NMSC: non-melanomatous skin cancer; Melanoma refers to cutaneous melanoma in all cases. SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; NR: not reported
aDiscriminative strength is a summary of the reported quantitative indices for discrimination between neoplastic and normal tissue in each study, not taking into account the number of samples. This was rated as follows: “Good”, AUROC > 0.7 or sensitivity and specificity both > 0.75 or Youden index > 0.5; “Moderate”, AUROC > 0.6 or Sensitivity > 0.7 and Youden index > 0.25; “Insufficient”, not meeting the above criteria or insufficient data. Youden index is calculated as the (sensitivity + specificity) minus 1 [11]
Results of other studies comparing malignant neoplasm versus normal tissue (grouped by cancer type)
| Author | Country of origin | Site | Histology of malignant tissue tested | Cancer samples | Benign samples | Specimen state | Discriminative strengtha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Halter 2015 | USA | Breast | IDC | 10 | 9 | In-vivo | Good |
| Gregory 2012 | USA | Breast | IDC or ILC ± DCIS or LCIS | 232 | 141 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Kim 2007 | USA | Breast | IDC | 1 | 1 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Cherepenin 2001 | Russia | Breast | – | 21 | 21 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| da Silva 2000 | Portugal | Breast | – | 21 | 42 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Osterman 2000 | USA | Breast | ILC or IDC | 3 | 12 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Chauveau 1999 | France | Breast | IDC | 2 | 1 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Jossinet 1998 | France | Breast | – | 23 | 64 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Stojadinovic 2005 | Multicentre | Breast | (Various) | 29 | 1074 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Kao 2008 | USA | Breast | IDC and DCIS | 3 | 1 | In-vivo | Moderateb |
| Halter 2009 | USA | Breast | IDC + DCIS | 11 | 4 | Both | Insufficient |
| Du 2017 | China | Breast | (Various) | 581 | 395 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Mahara 2015 | USA | Prostate | – | 3 | 3 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Mishra 2013 | USA | Prostate | – | 21 | 367 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Wan 2013 | USA | Prostate | – | 45 | 45 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Mishra 2012 | USA | Prostate | – | 36 | 288 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| de Abreu 2011 | Brazil | Prostate | – | 23 | 27 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Halter 2011 | USA | Prostate | – | 71 | 465 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Halter 2008 | USA | Prostate | – | 29 | 151 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Halter 2007 | USA | Prostate | Adenocarcinoma | o | 5 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Khan 2016 | USA | Prostate | – | 23 | 53 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Murphy 2017 | USA | Prostate | – | 12 | 105 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Lee 1999 | USA | Prostate | – | 6 | 6 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Halter 2008 | USA | Prostate | – | 17 | 345 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Keshtkar 2006 | Iran | Bladder | – | 24 | 73 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Wilkinson 2002 | UK | Bladder | – | 35 | 35 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Keshtkar 2012 | Iran | Bladder | – | 30 | 100 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Prakash 2014 | USA | Hepatic | Metastasis-colorectal primary | 41 | 91 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Laufer 2010 | Israel & USA | Hepatic | – | 32 | 26 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Gao 2014 | China | Lung | (Various) | 91 | 91 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Cherepenin 2001 | Russia | Lung | – | 22 | 7 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Sun 2010 | Taiwan | Tongue | SCC | 12 | 12 | In-vivo | Insufficientc |
| Ching 2010 | Taiwan | Tongue | SCC | 5 | 5 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Dua 2004 | USA | Skin -BCC | BCC | 18 | 16 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Kuzmina 2005 | Sweden | Skin -BCC | BCC | 35 | 35 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Keshtkar 2012 | Iran | Gastric | Adenocarcinoma | 19 | 22 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Yun 2016 | South Korea | Renal | RCC | 10 | 10 | Ex-vivo | Insufficient |
| Zheng 2013 | USA | Thyroid | Papillary & follicular | 27 | 133 | In-vivo | Good |
| Pathiraja 2017 | UK | Colorectal | Adenocarcinoma | 22 | 22 | Ex-vivo | Good |
| Habibi 2011 | USA | Skin-scc | SCC | 1 | 14 | In-vivo | Insufficient |
| Knabe 2013 | Germany | Oesophagus | Adenocarcinoma & SCC | 30 | 19 | In-vivo | Insufficientc |
IDC: invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC: invasive lobular carcinoma; DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; LCIS: lobular carcinoma in situ; SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; BCC: basal cell carcinoma; (Various): more than 3 histological cancer subtypes included; ‘–’, not stated
aDiscriminative strength is a summary of the reported quantitative indices for discrimination between neoplastic and normal tissue in each study, not taking into account the number of samples. This was rated as follows: “Good”, AUROC > 0.7 or sensitivity and specificity both > 0.75 or Youden index > 0.5; “Moderate”, AUROC > 0.6 or Sensitivity > 0.7 + Youden index > 0.25; “Insufficient”, not meeting the above criteria or insufficient data. Youden index is calculated as (sensitivity + specificity) minus 1 [11]
bThis study reported moderate discriminative ability in the < 40 year group
cThese two studies reported statistically significant differences between malignant and normal tissue on EIS, but insufficient data for calculating the overall discriminative strength
Summative results of the 51 studies by cancer type
| Site of malignancy | Histopathological type | No. of studies | Total no. of patients | Specimen state | Summative evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cervical | Cervical SCC | 4 | 638 | In-vivo | Stronga |
| Prostate | – | 12 | 297 | Both | Strong |
| Skin | Skin melanoma & NMSC | 7 | 3009 | In-vivo | Moderate |
| Breast | Various carcinomas | 12 | 2460 | Both | Moderate |
| Oral mucosa | SCC | 2 | 198 | In-vivo | Moderate |
| Bladder | – | 3 | 123 | Both | Moderate |
| Thyroid | Various carcinomas | 1 | 27 | In-vivo | Moderate |
| Colorectal | Adenocarcinoma | 1 | 22 | Ex-vivo | Moderate |
| Tongue | SCC | 2 | 29 | In-vivo | Weak |
| Lung | Various | 2 | 138 | Both | Weak |
| Hepatic | Metastases | 2 | 16 | Ex-vivo | Weak |
| Oesophagus | SCC & adenocarcinoma | 1 | 23 | In-vivo | Weak |
| Gastric | Adenocarcinoma | 1 | 45 | In-vivo | Weak |
| Renal | Renal cell carcinoma | 1 | 10 | Ex-vivo | Weak |
SCC: squamous cell carcinoma; NMSC: non-melanomatous skin cancer; BCC: basal cell carcinoma; ‘–’, not stated
Summative evidence strength classified as “Strong”: 2 or more large studies with good discriminative ability
“Moderate”: good discriminative indices described but in small numbers for any specific histological type
“Weak”: insufficient statistical data to demonstrate significant discriminative ability currently