| Literature DB >> 34253233 |
Kathryn Ottolino-Perry1, Anam Shahid1, Stephanie DeLuca1, Viktor Son1,2, Mayleen Sukhram1,2, Fannong Meng1,2, Zhihui Amy Liu3, Sara Rapic1, Nayana Thalanki Anantha1, Shirley C Wang1, Emilie Chamma1, Christopher Gibson1, Philip J Medeiros1, Safa Majeed1, Ashley Chu1, Olivia Wignall1, Alessandra Pizzolato1, Cheryl F Rosen4, Liis Lindvere Teene1, Danielle Starr-Dunham1, Iris Kulbatski1, Tony Panzarella3, Susan J Done1,2,5, Alexandra M Easson1,6, Wey L Leong1,6, Ralph S DaCosta7,8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Re-excision due to positive margins following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) negatively affects patient outcomes and healthcare costs. The inability to visualize margin involvement is a significant challenge in BCS. 5-Aminolevulinic acid hydrochloride (5-ALA HCl), a non-fluorescent oral prodrug, causes intracellular accumulation of fluorescent porphyrins in cancer cells. This single-center Phase II randomized controlled trial evaluated the safety, feasibility, and diagnostic accuracy of a prototype handheld fluorescence imaging device plus 5-ALA for intraoperative visualization of invasive breast carcinomas during BCS.Entities:
Keywords: Aminolevulinic acid; Breast cancer; Breast-conserving surgery; Fluorescence imaging; Handheld intraoperative imaging device; Intraoperative imaging; Margin assessment; Optical imaging
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34253233 PMCID: PMC8276412 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-021-01442-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Fig. 1CONSORT diagram. Patients with tumors measuring < 2 cm (greatest dimension) at specimen gross examination were excluded from the analysis because biopsies could not be collected from inside the demarcated tumor border. One case was excluded because of insufficient time to complete data collection prior to initiating formalin fixation of the specimen
Baseline characteristics and surgical procedures
| Control ( | Low Dose ( | High Dose ( | Total ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55.5 (15.3) | 57.5 (13.2) | 53.8 (9.9) | 55.6 (12.8) | |
| Lumpectomy | 10 (66.7) | 9 (60.0) | 10 (66.7) | 29 (64.4) |
| Mastectomy | 5 (33.3) | 6 (37.5) | 5 (33.3) | 16 (35.5) |
| IDC | 13 (86.7) | 13 (86.7) | 11 (73.3) | 37 (82.2) |
| ILC | 1 (6.7) | 2 (13.3) | 4 (26.7) | 7 (15.6) |
| IMC | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) |
| 3.1 (1.2) | 2.7 (0.9) | 3.3 (2.2) | 3.0 (1.5) | |
| 1 | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | 3 (6.7) |
| 2 | 4 (26.6) | 6 (40.0) | 5 (33.3) | 15 (33.3) |
| 3 | 10 (66.7) | 8 (53.3) | 9 (60.0) | 27 (60.0) |
| 1 | 4 (26.7) | 5 (33.3) | 5 (33.3) | 14 (31.1) |
| 2 | 3 (20.0) | 3 (20.0) | 4 (26.7) | 10 (22.2) |
| 3 | 8 (53.3) | 7 (46.7) | 6 (37.5) | 21 (46.7) |
| Positive | 12 (80.0) | 12 (80.0) | 11 (73.3) | 35 (77.8) |
| Negative | 3 (20.0) | 3 (20.0) | 4 (26.7) | 10 (22.2) |
| Positive | 12 (80.0) | 10 (66.7) | 10 (66.7) | 32 (71.1) |
| Negative | 3 (20.0) | 5 (33.3) | 5 (33.3) | 13 (28.9) |
| Positive | 1 (6.7) | 4 (26.7) | 2 (13.3) | 7 (15.6) |
| Negative | 14 (93.3) | 11 (73.3) | 13 (86.7) | 38 (84.4) |
| Yes | 12 (80.0) | 10 (66.7) | 9 (60.0) | 31 (68.9) |
| No | 3 (20.0) | 5 (33.3) | 6 (37.5) | 14 (31.1) |
| Positive (Invasive) | 1 (6.7) | 1 (6.7) | 4 (26.7) | 6 (13.3) |
| Negative (Invasive) | 14 (93.3) | 14 (93.3) | 11 (73.3) | 39 (86.7) |
| Positive (DCIS) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (6.7) | 2 (4.4) |
| Negative (DCIS) | 14 (93.3) | 15 (100) | 14 (93.3) | 43 (95.6) |
| Yes | 3 (20.0) | 3 (20.0) | 4 (26.7) | 10 (22.2) |
| No | 12 (80.0) | 12 (80.0) | 11 (73.3) | 35 (77.8) |
| Yes | 2 (13.3) | 1 (6.7) | 3 (20.0) | 6 (13.3) |
| No | 13 (86.7) | 14 (93.3) | 12 (80.0) | 39 (86.7) |
SD standard deviation, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma, ILC invasive lobular carcinoma, IMC invasive mammary carcinoma, ER estrogen receptor, PR progesterone receptor, HER2 Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, DCIS ductal carcinoma in situ
amargin revision not guided by fluorescence imaging
Fig. 2Fluorescence imaging of 5-ALA-induced PpIX fluorescence in grossly obvious and grossly occult carcinoma. A Representative white light (top row) and fluorescence (bottom row) images of grossly obvious disease in sectioned lumpectomy specimens (a) and a clinically positive sentinel lymph node (c). The pathologist’s assistant (V.S., M.S., F.M.) demarcated tumor border (blue line) identified the grossly obvious tumor in the sectioned specimens. The surgeon (A.M.E., W.L.L.) identified the lymph node as grossly obvious for disease. B Representative white light (top row) and fluorescence (bottom row) images of grossly occult disease at the surface of an excised lumpectomy (a), in grossly sectioned specimens (b, c) and a sentinel lymph node (d) from patients with invasive ductal carcinoma with (a, d) or without (b, c) a DCIS component administered 15 mg/kg (b, c) or 30 mg/kg (a, d) 5-ALA HCl. Images represent tissue that was identified by the surgeon (A.M.E., W.L.L.) (a, d) or pathologist’s assistant (V.S., M.S., F.M.) (b, c) as grossly negative for the presence of cancer. (a) DCIS identified by fluorescence imaging at the lumpectomy margin. (b, c) Invasive carcinoma identified by fluorescence imaging on slices outside the grossly demarcated tumor. (d) Invasive carcinoma macro-metastases identified by fluorescence imaging in an excised sentinel lymph node. Scale bars = 5 mm
Performance of fluorescence imaging device to detect carcinoma in patients administered 5-ALA stratified by biopsy location. Measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated separately for the areas inside and outside the demarcated tumor border. Areas of fluorescence images classified as negative or positive for PpIX red fluorescence (−Red FL/+Red FL) were biopsied and fluorescence imaging results were compared to gold-standard histological evaluation of biopsy H&E tissue sections performed by a blinded pathologist (S.J.D.)
| Low Dose (15 mg/kg) | High Dose (30 mg/kg) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inside the tumor border | Outside the tumor border | Inside the tumor border | Outside the tumor border | |||||
| -Cancer | +Cancer | -Cancer | +Cancer | -Cancer | +Cancer | -Cancer | +Cancer | |
| -Red FL | 1 | 6 | 21 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 20 | 2 |
| +Red FL | 0 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
PPV % (95%CI) | 100.0% (63.1 – 100.0) | 55.6% (21.2 – 86.3) | 100.0% (73.5 – 100.0) | 50.0% (18.7 – 81.3) | ||||
NPV % (95%CI) | N/A | 95.5% (77.2 – 99.9) | N/A | 90.9% (70.8 – 98.9) | ||||
Sensitivity % (95%CI) | 57.1% (28.9 – 82.3) | 83.3% (35.9 – 99.6) | 66.7% (38.4 – 88.2) | 71.4% (29.0 – 96.3) | ||||
Specificity % (95%CI) | 100.0%a (2.5 – 100.0) | 84.0% (63.9 – 95.5) | N/Ab | 80.0% (59.3 – 93.2) | ||||
| DOR (95%CI) | N/A | 26.3 (2.38 – 288.94) | N/A | 10 (1.5 – 67.6) | ||||
FL fluorescence, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, CI confidence interval, DOR diagnostic odds ratio, N/A not applicable
aa single tumor negative biopsy was collected inside the demarcated tumor border
bno tumor negative biopsies collected inside the tumor border
Performance of fluorescence imaging device to detect carcinoma in patients administered 5-ALA. Overall measures of diagnostic accuracy were calculated irrespective of the biopsy location (analysis combined biopsies collected inside and outside the tumor border). Areas of fluorescence images classified as negative or positive for PpIX red fluorescence (−Red FL/+Red FL) were biopsied and fluorescence imaging results were compared to gold-standard histological evaluation of biopsy H&E tissue sections performed by a blinded pathologist (S.J.D.)
| Low Dose (15 mg/kg) | High Dose (30 mg/kg) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -Cancer | +Cancer | -Cancer | +Cancer | |
| -Red FL | 22 | 7 | 20 | 7 |
| +Red FL | 4 | 13 | 5 | 15 |
PPV % (95%CI) | 76.5% (50.1 – 93.2) | 75.0% (50.9 – 91.3) | ||
NPV % (95%CI) | 75.9% (56.5 – 89.7) | 74.1% (53.7 – 88.9) | ||
Sensitivity % (95%CI) | 65.0% (40.8 – 84.6) | 68.2% (45.1 – 86.1) | ||
Specificity % (95%CI) | 84.6% (65.1 – 95.6) | 80.0% (59.3– 93.2) | ||
| DOR (95%CI) | 13.6 (3.0 – 62.0) | 8.6 (2.3 – 32.4) | ||
FL fluorescence, PPV positive predictive value, NPV negative predictive value, CI confidence interval, DOR diagnostic odds ratio, N/A not applicable
Fig. 3Detection of grossly occult sub-millimeter red fluorescence tumor foci. A WL and fluorescence images of a slice containing no clinically obvious disease from a patient who received 30 mg/kg 5-ALA HCl. Biopsies were collected in an area of focal red PpIX fluorescence (Bx1) and an adjacent area lacking PpIX fluorescence (Bx2). B H&E-stained longitudinal section of the Bx1 biopsy identified in A, which was determined to contain invasive ductal carcinoma by a blinded pathologist (S.J.D.). The imaged surface of the biopsy is indicated by the arrowheads. The area of tumor near the imaged surface measured 0.71 mm2. C H&E-stained longitudinal section of the Bx2 biopsy identified in A, which was determined to be negative for tumor by a blinded pathologist (S.J.D.). D White light and fluorescence images of slices of a lumpectomy from a patient who received 15 mg/kg 5-ALA HCl. A biopsy (Bx1) was collected from a small area of red fluorescence (inset digitally zoomed). E H&E-stained longitudinal section of the Bx1 identified in D, which was determined to contain DCIS > 2 mm below the imaged surface (arrowheads). Scale bar = 0.5 mm (A, D), 500 μm (B, C, E). WL, white light; FL, fluorescence; Bx, biopsy; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ
Fig. 4Cancer cell-specific localization of ALA-induced PpIX fluorescence. Representative A fluorescence microscopy and B corresponding histological images (bottom panel) from a biopsy collected inside the demarcated primary tumor boundary of a patient who received 30 mg/kg 5-ALA. The biopsy appeared red fluorescent with PRODIGI imaging. A Fluorescence microscopy was performed on cryosections cut from tumor core biopsies followed by B H&E, Masson’s Trichrome (MT), and Oil Red O (ORO) staining. Arrowheads depict green AF that was consistently observed in fibrous collagen tissue and in locations of necrosis, as confirmed with H&E and MT staining. Adipose tissue, identified by ORO staining, demonstrated both green and red AF (asterisk). PpIX fluorescence microscopic imaging confirmed cancer cell localization of PpIX (arrow), which was not observed during green AF imaging. Scale bar = 100 μm
Fig. 5Ex vivo breast specimen fluorescence in patients with and without 5-ALA. Representative white light and fluorescence images with corresponding biopsy-based H&E and fluorescence spectra from patients with invasive ductal carcinoma receiving A no 5-ALA, B 15 mg/kg 5-ALA, or C 30 mg/kg 5-ALA. (a) Biopsies were collected in areas inside (Bx1) the PA demarcated tumor (blue line) and outside the demarcated tumor (Bx2-4) on an adjacent slice of the specimen. Circular insets are digitally magnified images of the biopsy areas demonstrating the fluorescence color. (b) H&E-stained longitudinal biopsy sections were examined by a blinded pathologist (S.J.D.) for the presence of cancer. (c) Point spectroscopy was performed at the Bx1 location and smoothed fluorescence spectra in the region of PpIX emission (red box, 635 nm peak) are presented. D Representative chromaticity diagrams (CIE xyY displaying the average pixel color inside the demarcated tumor border and outside to normal tissue contrast from fluorescence images of specimens from patients described in parts A–C of this figure. E Bar graph depicting the average vector distance between the average pixel color of the primary tumor and surrounding normal tissue. * p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA with multiple comparisons. Scale bar = 5 mm (a, white light and fluorescence images), 100 μm (a, inset), 500 μm (b, H&E sections). Bx, biopsy; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma