ArticleAsian journal of urology2020
Investigation of confocal microscopy for differentiation of renal cell carcinoma versus benign tissue. Can an optical biopsy be performed?
Article in Asian journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current strategies to diagnose and manage positive surgical margins and local recurrence after partial nephrectomy.Asian journal of urology · 2022Review
- New imaging technologies for robotic kidney cancer surgery.Asian journal of urology · 2022Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveNovel optical imaging modalities are under development with the goal of obtaining an "optical biopsy" to efficiently provide pathologic details. One such modality is confocal microscopy which allows
methodsSpecimens were obtained from patients who underwent robotic partial nephrectomy for renal mass. Samples of suspected normal and tumor tissue were extracted from the excised portion of the kidney and stained with acridine orange. The stained samples were imaged on a Nikon E600 C1 Confocal Microscope. The samples were then submitted for hematoxylin and eosin processing and read by an expert pathologist to provide a gold-standard diagnosis that can later be compared to the confocal images.
resultsThis study included 11 patients, 17 tissue samples, and 118 confocal images. Of the 17 tissue samples, 10 had a gold-standard diagnosis of cancer and seven were benign. Of 118 confocal images, 66 had a gold-standard diagnosis of cancer and 52 were benign. Six confocal images were used as a training set to train eight observers. The observers were asked to rate the test images on a six point scale and the results were analyzed using a web based receiver operating characteristic curve calculator. The average accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the empirical receiver operating characteristic curve for this study were 91%, 98%, 81%, and 0.94 respectively.
conclusionThis preliminary study suggest that confocal microscopy can be used to distinguish cancer from normal tissue with high sensitivity and specificity. The observers in this study were trained quickly and on only six images. We expect even higher performance as observers become more familiar with the confocal images.
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.