Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27281113›Full record

ArticleVeterinary surgery : VS2016

A Novel Imaging System Distinguishes Neoplastic from Normal Tissue During Resection of Soft Tissue Sarcomas and Mast Cell Tumors in Dogs.

Suzanne Bartholf DeWitt, William C Eward, Cindy A Eward, Alexander L Lazarides, Melodi Javid Whitley, Jorge M Ferrer, Brian E Brigman, David G Kirsch, John Berg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary surgery : VS, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Suzanne Bartholf DeWittDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
William C EwardDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Cindy A EwardVeterinary Specialty Hospital of the Carolinas, Cary, North Carolina.
Alexander L LazaridesDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Melodi Javid WhitleyDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Jorge M FerrerLumicell, Inc., Wellesley, Massachusetts.
Brian E BrigmanDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
David G KirschDuke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
John BergCummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University, North Grafton, Massachusetts.
Duke Medical Center · USCarolina Veterinary Specialists · USLumicell (United States) · USTufts University · US

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007171 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KONTOS, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2021
$31.2M
Engineered imaging nanoparticle for realtime detection of cancer in the tumor bedU43CA165024 · NCI · LUMICELL, INC. · PI LEE, W. DAVID · 2011 to 2011
$213k
NCI NIH HHS U43 CA165024NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the ability of a novel imaging system designed for intraoperative detection of residual cancer in tumor beds to distinguish neoplastic from normal tissue in dogs undergoing resection of soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and mast cell tumor (MCT). STUDY

designNon-randomized prospective clinical trial. ANIMALS: 12 dogs with STS and 7 dogs with MCT.

methodsA fluorescent imaging agent that is activated by proteases in vivo was administered to the dogs 4-6 or 24-26 hours before tumor resection. During surgery, a handheld imaging device was used to measure fluorescence intensity within the cancerous portion of the resected specimen and determine an intensity threshold for subsequent identification of cancer. Selected areas within the resected specimen and tumor bed were then imaged, and biopsies (n=101) were obtained from areas that did or did not have a fluorescence intensity exceeding the threshold. Results of intraoperative fluorescence and histology were compared.

resultsThe imaging system correctly distinguished cancer from normal tissue in 93/101 biopsies (92%). Using histology as the reference, the sensitivity and specificity of the imaging system for identification of cancer in biopsies were 92% and 92%, respectively. There were 10/19 (53%) dogs which exhibited transient facial erythema soon after injection of the imaging agent which responded to but was not consistently prevented by intravenous diphenhydramine.

conclusionA fluorescence-based imaging system designed for intraoperative use can distinguish canine soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and mast cell tumor (MCT) tissue from normal tissue with a high degree of accuracy. The system has potential to assist surgeons in assessing the adequacy of tumor resections during surgery, potentially reducing the risk of local tumor recurrence. Although responsive to antihistamines, the risk of hypersensitivity needs to be considered in light of the potential benefits of this imaging system in dogs.

Indexed as

Neoplasm, ResidualAnimalsBiopsyDog DiseasesDogsFemaleMastocytomaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesSarcoma

Identifiers

PMID27281113
PMCPMC4970890
OpenAlexW2418741997

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.