Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2010
Enhancing colposcopy with polarized light.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ferris Daron G, Li Wenjing, Gustafsson Ulf, Lieberman Richard W, Galdos Oscar, Santos Carlos
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine the potential utility of polarized light used during colposcopic examinations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Matched, polarized, and unpolarized colposcopic images and diagnostic annotations from 31 subjects receiving excisional treatment of cervical neoplasia were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, and mean Euclidean distances between the centroids of the gaussian ellipsoids for the different epithelial types were calculated for unpolarized and polarized images.
RESULTS: The sensitivities of polarized colposcopic annotations for discriminating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or higher were greater for all 3 acetowhite categories when compared with unpolarized annotations (58% [44/76] vs 45% [34/76], 68% [50/74] vs 59% [45/76], and 68% [49/72] vs 66% [50/76], respectively). The average percent differences in Euclidean distances between the epithelial types for unpolarized and polarized cervical images were as follows: CIN 2/3 versus CIN 1 = 33% (10/30, p =.03), CIN 2/3 versus columnar epithelium = 22% (p =.004), CIN 2/3 versus immature metaplasia = 29% (14/47, p =.11), and CIN 1 versus immature metaplasia = 27% (4.4/16, p =.16).
CONCLUSIONS: Because of its ability to interrogate at a deeper plane and eliminate obscuring glare, polarized light colposcopy may enhance the evaluation and detection of cervical neoplasias.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Matched, polarized, and unpolarized colposcopic images and diagnostic annotations from 31 subjects receiving excisional treatment of cervical neoplasia were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, and mean Euclidean distances between the centroids of the gaussian ellipsoids for the different epithelial types were calculated for unpolarized and polarized images.
RESULTS: The sensitivities of polarized colposcopic annotations for discriminating cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or higher were greater for all 3 acetowhite categories when compared with unpolarized annotations (58% [44/76] vs 45% [34/76], 68% [50/74] vs 59% [45/76], and 68% [49/72] vs 66% [50/76], respectively). The average percent differences in Euclidean distances between the epithelial types for unpolarized and polarized cervical images were as follows: CIN 2/3 versus CIN 1 = 33% (10/30, p =.03), CIN 2/3 versus columnar epithelium = 22% (p =.004), CIN 2/3 versus immature metaplasia = 29% (14/47, p =.11), and CIN 1 versus immature metaplasia = 27% (4.4/16, p =.16).
CONCLUSIONS: Because of its ability to interrogate at a deeper plane and eliminate obscuring glare, polarized light colposcopy may enhance the evaluation and detection of cervical neoplasias.