Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19650910›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2009

Confocal microscopy of unfixed breast needle core biopsies: a comparison to fixed and stained sections.

Linda M Schiffhauer, J Neil Boger, Thomas A Bonfiglio, James M Zavislan, Margarita Zuley, Christi Alessi Fox

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Spectrally encoded confocal microscopy for diagnosing breast cancer in excision and margin specimens.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Beyond isolated cells: microfluidic transport of large tissue for pancreatic cancer diagnosis.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2015
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Assessment of breast pathologies using nonlinear microscopy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014
    Article
  14. Feasibility of a hybrid elastographic-microfluidic device to rapidly process and assess pancreatic cancer biopsies for pathologists.... Health innovations and point-of-care technologies conference. Health innovations and point-of-care technologies conference · 2014
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Linda M SchiffhauerLucid, Inc,, 2320 Brighton Henrietta Town Line Road, Rochester, NY 14623, USA. Linda_Schiffhauer@URMC.Rochester.edu
J Neil Boger
Thomas A Bonfiglio
James M Zavislan
Margarita Zuley
Christi Alessi Fox
Lucid Technologies (United States) · USMagee-Womens Hospital · USUniversity of Rochester · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeedle core biopsy, often in conjunction with ultrasonic or stereotactic guided techniques, is frequently used to diagnose breast carcinoma in women. Confocal scanning laser microscopy (CSLM) is a technology that provides real-time digital images of tissues with cellular resolution. This paper reports the progress in developing techniques to rapidly screen needle core breast biopsy and surgical specimens at the point of care. CSLM requires minimal tissue processing and has the potential to reduce the time from excision to diagnosis. Following imaging, specimens can still be submitted for standard histopathological preparation.

methodsNeedle core breast specimens from 49 patients were imaged at the time of biopsy. These lesions had been characterized under the Breast Imaging Reporting And Data System (BI-RADS) as category 3, 4 or 5. The core biopsies were imaged with the CSLM before fixation. Samples were treated with 5% citric acid and glycerin USP to enhance nuclear visibility in the reflectance confocal images. Immediately following imaging, the specimens were fixed in buffered formalin and submitted for histological processing and pathological diagnosis. CSLM images were then compared to the standard histology.

resultsThe pathologic diagnoses by standard histology were 7 invasive ductal carcinomas, 2 invasive lobular carcinomas, 3 ductal carcinomas in-situ (CIS), 21 fibrocystic changes/proliferative conditions, 9 fibroadenomas, and 5 other/benign; two were excluded due to imaging difficulties. Morphologic and cellular features of benign and cancerous lesions were identified in the confocal images and were comparable to standard histologic sections of the same tissue.

conclusionCSLM is a technique with the potential to screen needle core biopsy specimens in real-time. The confocal images contained sufficient information to identify stromal reactions such as fibrosis and cellular proliferations such as intra-ductal and infiltrating carcinoma, and were comparable to standard histologic sections of the same tissue. Morphologic and cellular features of benign and cancerous lesions were identified in the confocal images. Additional studies are needed to 1.) establish correlation of the confocal and traditional histologic images for the various diseases of the breast; 2.) validate diagnostic use of CSLM and; 3.) further define features of borderline lesions such as well-differentiated ductal CIS vs. atypical hyperplasia.

Indexed as

BiopsyBiopsy, NeedleBreast NeoplasmsCell ProliferationContrast MediaFemaleHumansMedical OncologyMicroscopy, ConfocalNeoplasm InvasivenessContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID19650910
PMCPMC3087331
OpenAlexW1969353140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.