ArticleBMC cancer2016
Investigation of optical coherence micro-elastography as a method to visualize micro-architecture in human axillary lymph nodes.
Article in BMC cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polarization-sensitive optical coherence elastography.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- Volumetric quantitative optical coherence elastography with an iterative inversion method.Biomedical optics express · 2019Article
- Optical coherence elastography - OCT at work in tissue biomechanics [Invited].Biomedical optics express · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of lymph node involvement is an important factor in detecting metastasis and deciding whether to perform axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in breast cancer surgery. As ALND is associated with potentially severe long term morbidity, the accuracy of lymph node assessment is imperative in avoiding unnecessary ALND. The mechanical properties of malignant lymph nodes are often distinct from those of normal nodes. A method to image the micro-scale mechanical properties of lymph nodes could, thus, provide diagnostic information to aid in the assessment of lymph node involvement in metastatic cancer. In this study, we scan axillary lymph nodes, freshly excised from breast cancer patients, with optical coherence micro-elastography (OCME), a method of imaging micro-scale mechanical strain, to assess its potential for the intraoperative assessment of lymph node involvement.
methodsTwenty-six fresh, unstained lymph nodes were imaged from 15 patients undergoing mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery with axillary clearance. Lymph node specimens were bisected to allow imaging of the internal face of each node. Co-located OCME and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans were taken of each sample, and the results compared to standard post-operative hematoxylin-and-eosin-stained histology.
resultsThe optical backscattering signal provided by OCT alone may not provide reliable differentiation by inspection between benign and malignant lymphoid tissue. Alternatively, OCME highlights local changes in tissue strain that correspond to malignancy and are distinct from strain patterns in benign lymphoid tissue. The mechanical contrast provided by OCME complements the optical contrast provided by OCT and aids in the differentiation of malignant tumor from uninvolved lymphoid tissue.
conclusionThe combination of OCME and OCT images represents a promising method for the identification of malignant lymphoid tissue. This method shows potential to provide intraoperative assessment of lymph node involvement, thus, preventing unnecessary removal of uninvolved tissues and improving patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.