Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2023
Imaging of lumpectomy surface with large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscopy 'Histolog® scanner' for breast margin assessment in comparison with conventional specimen radiography.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Togawa Riku, Hederer Johanna, Ragazzi Moira, Bruckner Thomas, Fastner Sarah, Gomez Christina, Hennigs André, Nees Juliane, Pfob André, Riedel Fabian, Schäfgen Benedikt, Stieber Anne, Lux Michael P, Heil Jörg, Golatta Michael
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The Histolog® Scanner (SamanTree Medical SA, Lausanne, Switzerland) is a large field-of-view confocal laser scanning microscope designed to allow intraoperative margin assessment by the production of histological images ready for assessment in the operating room. We evaluated the feasibility and the performance of the Histolog® Scanner (HS) to correctly identify infiltrated margins in clinical practice of lumpectomy specimens. It was extrapolated if the utilization of the HS has the potential to reduce infiltrated margins and therefore reduce re-operation rates in patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) due to a primarily diagnosed breast cancer including ductal carcinoma in situ.
METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, non-interventional, diagnostic pilot study including 50 consecutive patients receiving BCS. The complete surface of the specimen was scanned using the HS intraoperatively. The surgery and the intraoperative margin assessment of the specimen was performed according to the clinical routine consisting of conventional specimen radiography as well as the clinical impression of the surgeon. Three surgeons and an experienced pathologist assessed the scans produced by the HS for cancer cells on the surface. The potential of the HS to correctly identify involved margins was compared to the results of the conventional specimen radiography alone as well as the clinical routine. The histopathological report served as the gold standard.
RESULTS: 50 specimens corresponding to 300 surfaces were scanned by the HS. The mean sensitivity of the surgeons to identify involved margins with the HS was 37.5% ± 5.6%, the specificity was 75.2% ± 13.0%. The assessment of resection margins by the pathologist resulted in a sensitivity of 37.5% and a specificity of 81.0%, while the local clinical routine resulted in a sensitivity of 37.5% and a specificity of 78.2%.
CONCLUSION: Acquisition of high-resolution histological images using the HS was feasible in clinical practice. Sensitivity and specificity were comparable to clinical routine. With more specific training and experience on image interpretation and acquisition, the HS may have the potential to enable more accuracy in the margin assessment of BCS specimens.
METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, non-interventional, diagnostic pilot study including 50 consecutive patients receiving BCS. The complete surface of the specimen was scanned using the HS intraoperatively. The surgery and the intraoperative margin assessment of the specimen was performed according to the clinical routine consisting of conventional specimen radiography as well as the clinical impression of the surgeon. Three surgeons and an experienced pathologist assessed the scans produced by the HS for cancer cells on the surface. The potential of the HS to correctly identify involved margins was compared to the results of the conventional specimen radiography alone as well as the clinical routine. The histopathological report served as the gold standard.
RESULTS: 50 specimens corresponding to 300 surfaces were scanned by the HS. The mean sensitivity of the surgeons to identify involved margins with the HS was 37.5% ± 5.6%, the specificity was 75.2% ± 13.0%. The assessment of resection margins by the pathologist resulted in a sensitivity of 37.5% and a specificity of 81.0%, while the local clinical routine resulted in a sensitivity of 37.5% and a specificity of 78.2%.
CONCLUSION: Acquisition of high-resolution histological images using the HS was feasible in clinical practice. Sensitivity and specificity were comparable to clinical routine. With more specific training and experience on image interpretation and acquisition, the HS may have the potential to enable more accuracy in the margin assessment of BCS specimens.