Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26779830›Full record

ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2016

Spectrally encoded confocal microscopy for diagnosing breast cancer in excision and margin specimens.

Elena F Brachtel, Nicole B Johnson, Amelia E Huck, Travis L Rice-Stitt, Mark G Vangel, Barbara L Smith, Guillermo J Tearney, Dongkyun Kang

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elena F BrachtelDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Nicole B JohnsonDepartment of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Amelia E HuckDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Travis L Rice-StittDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Mark G VangelDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Barbara L SmithGillette Center for Women's Cancers and Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Guillermo J TearneyDepartment of Pathology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Dongkyun KangWellman Center for Photomedicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · US

Funding

Harvard Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR001102 · NCATS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI NADLER, LEE MARSHALL · 2013 to 2017
$106.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001102
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large percentage of breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery need to undergo multiple surgeries due to positive margins found during post-operative margin assessment. Carcinomas could be removed completely during the initial surgery and additional surgery avoided if positive margins can be determined intraoperatively. Spectrally encoded confocal microscopy (SECM) is a high-speed reflectance confocal microscopy technology that has a potential to rapidly image the entire surgical margin at subcellular resolution and accurately determine margin status intraoperatively. In this study, in order to test the feasibility of using SECM for intraoperative margin assessment, we have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of SECM for detecting various types of breast cancers. Forty-six surgically removed breast specimens were imaged with an SECM system. Side-by-side comparison between SECM and histologic images showed that SECM images can visualize key histomorphologic patterns of normal/benign and malignant breast tissues. Small (500 μm × 500 μm) spatially registered SECM and histologic images (n=124 for each) were diagnosed independently by three pathologists with expertise in breast pathology. Diagnostic accuracy of SECM for determining malignant tissues was high, average sensitivity of 0.91, specificity of 0.93, positive predictive value of 0.95, and negative predictive value of 0.87. Intra-observer agreement and inter-observer agreement for SECM were also high, 0.87 and 0.84, respectively. Results from this study suggest that SECM may be developed into an intraoperative margin assessment tool for guiding breast cancer excisions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMastectomy, SegmentalMicroscopy, ConfocalObserver VariationPrognosisReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID26779830
PMCPMC5027883
OpenAlexW2262068412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.