ArticlePancreas2017
Tissue Classification Using Optical Spectroscopy Accurately Differentiates Cancer and Chronic Pancreatitis.
Article in Pancreas, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diffuse Reflectance Spectroscopy of the Oral Mucosa: In Vivo Experimental Validation of the Precancerous Lesions Early Detection Possibility.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A high serum creatine kinase (CK)-MB-to-total-CK ratio in patients with pancreatic cancer: a novel application of a traditional marker in predicting malignancy of pancreatic masses?World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Single fiber reflectance spectroscopy for pancreatic cancer detection during endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy: a prospective cohort study.International journal of medical sciences · 2022Observational
- Needle-compatible miniaturized optoelectronic sensor for pancreatic cancer detection.Science advances · 2020Article
- Compact dual-mode diffuse optical system for blood perfusion monitoring in a porcine model of microvascular tissue flaps.Journal of biomedical optics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCurrent pancreatic cancer diagnostics cannot reliably detect early disease or distinguish it from chronic pancreatitis. We test the hypothesis that optical spectroscopy can accurately differentiate cancer from chronic pancreatitis and normal pancreas. We developed and tested clinically compatible multimodal optical spectroscopy technology to measure reflectance and endogenous fluorescence from human pancreatic tissues.
methodsFreshly excised pancreatic tissue specimens (39 normal, 34 chronic pancreatitis, 32 adenocarcinoma) from 18 patients were optically interrogated, with site-specific histopathology representing the criterion standard. A multinomial logistic model using principal component analysis and generalized estimating equations provided statistically rigorous tissue classification.
resultsOptical spectroscopy distinguished pancreatic cancer from normal pancreas and chronic pancreatitis (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 82%; positive predictive value, 69%; negative predictive value, 95%; area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.89). Reflectance alone provided essentially the same classification accuracy as reflectance and fluorescence combined, suggesting that a rapid, low-cost, reduced-footprint, reflectance-based device could be deployed without notable loss of diagnostic power.
conclusionsOur novel, clinically compatible, label-free optical diagnostic technology accurately characterizes pancreatic tissues. These data provide the scientific foundation demonstrating that optical spectroscopy can potentially improve diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis.
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.