ArticleSurgical oncology2018
Evaluation of optical imaging agents in a fluorescence-guided surgical model of head and neck cancer.
Article in Surgical oncology, 2018. 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.
- Open-field fluorescence guided imaging of ameloblastoma tumors in mouse patient-derived xenograft model.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Pressure-enhanced sensing of tissue oxygenation via endogenous porphyrin: Implications for dynamic visualization of cancer in surgery.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Advances in Intraoperative Flow Cytometry.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- In vivo visualization and molecular targeting of the cardiac conduction system.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2022Article
- [Urology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTumor proliferation often occurs from pathologic receptor upregulation. These receptors provide unique targets for near-infrared (NIR) probes that have fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) applications. We demonstrate the use of three smart-targeted probes in a model of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.
methodsA dose escalation study was performed using IntegriSense750, ProSense750EX, and ProSense750FAST in mice (n = 5) bearing luciferase-positive SCC-1 flank xenograft tumors. Whole body fluorescence imaging was performed serially after intravenous injection using commercially available open-field (LUNA, Novadaq, Canada) and closed-field NIR systems (Pearl, LI-COR, Lincoln, NE). An ex vivo, whole-body biodistribution was conducted. Lastly, FGS was performed with IntegriSense750 to demonstrate orthotopic and metastatic disease localization.
resultsDisease fluorescence delineation was assessed by tumor-to-background fluorescence ratios (TBR). Peak TBR values were 3.3 for 1 nmol ProSense750EX, 5.5 for 6 nmol ProSense750FAST, and 10.8 for 4 nmol IntegriSense750 at 5.5, 3, and 4 d post administration, respectively. Agent utility is unique: ProSense750FAST provides sufficient contrast quickly (TBR: 1.5, 3 h) while IntegriSense750 produces strong (TBR: 10.8) contrast with extended administration-to-resection time (96 h). IntegriSense750 correctly identified all diseased nodes in situ during exploratory surgeries. Ex vivo, whole-body biodistribution was assessed by tumor-to-tissue fluorescence ratios (TTR). Agents provided sufficient fluorescence contrast to discriminate disease from background, TTR>1. IntegriSense750 was most robust in neural tissue (TTR: 64) while ProSense750EX was superior localizing disease against lung tissue (TBR: 13).
conclusionAll three agents appear effective for FGS.
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.