ArticleEuropean radiology2018
Preclinical ex vivo evaluation of the diagnostic performance of a new device for in situ label-free fluorescence spectral analysis of breast masses.
Article in European radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toward handheld optically guided biopsy combining diffuse reflectance spectroscopy and autofluorescence.Journal of biomedical optics · 2025Article
- Capabilities of Human Biotissue Fluorescence Spectroscopy in the Wearable Multimodal Version.Sovremennye tekhnologii v meditsine · 2025Article
- In Vivo Time-Resolved Fluorescence Detection of Liver Cancer Supported by Machine Learning.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2024Article
- Autofluorescence imaging within the liver: a promising tool for the detection and characterization of primary liver tumors.European radiology · 2022Article
- Fluorescence lifetime needle optical biopsy discriminates hepatocellular carcinoma.Biomedical optics express · 2022Article
- Optical percutaneous needle biopsy of the liver: a pilot animal and clinical study.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the diagnostic performance of a new device for in situ label-free fluorescence spectral analysis of breast masses in freshly removed surgical specimens, in preparation for its clinical development.
methodsSixty-four breast masses from consenting patients who had undergone either a lumpectomy or a mastectomy were included. Label-free fluorescence spectral acquisitions were obtained with a 25G fibre-containing needle inserted into the mass. Data from benign and malignant masses were compared to establish the most discriminating thresholds and measurement algorithms. Accuracy was verified using the bootstrap method.
resultsThe final histological examination revealed 44 invasive carcinomas and 20 benign lesions. The maximum intensity of fluorescence signal was discriminant between benign and malignant masses (p < .0001) whatever their sizes. Statistical analysis indicated that choosing five random measurements per mass was the best compromise to obtain high sensitivity and high negative predictive value with the fewest measurements. Thus, malignant tumours were identified with a mean sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value of 98.8%, 85.4%, 97.2% and 93.5%, respectively.
conclusionThis new in situ tissue autofluorescence evaluation device allows accurate discrimination between benign and malignant breast masses and deserves clinical development. KEY POINTS: • A new device allows in situ label-free fluorescence analysis of ex vivo breast masses • Maximum fluorescence intensity discriminates benign from malignant masses (p < .0001) • Five random measurements allow a high negative predictive value (97.2%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
29305733What 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.