Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33255263›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Diagnostic Accuracy of Cross-Polarization OCT and OCT-Elastography for Differentiation of Breast Cancer Subtypes: Comparative Study.

Ekaterina V Gubarkova, Elena B Kiseleva, Marina A Sirotkina, Dmitry A Vorontsov, Ksenia A Achkasova, Sergey S Kuznetsov, Konstantin S Yashin, Aleksander L Matveyev, Aleksander A Sovetsky, Lev A Matveev and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Wave-based optical coherence elastography: The 10-year perspective.Progress in biomedical engineering (Bristol, England) · 2022
    Article
  15. Optical Diagnostics in Human Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ekaterina V GubarkovaInstitute of Experimental Oncology and Biomedical Technologies, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-5416-3241
Elena B KiselevaInstitute of Experimental Oncology and Biomedical Technologies, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-4769-417X
Marina A SirotkinaInstitute of Experimental Oncology and Biomedical Technologies, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Dmitry A VorontsovDepartment of Oncology, Nizhny Novgorod Regional Oncologic Hospital, 603126 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Ksenia A AchkasovaInstitute of Experimental Oncology and Biomedical Technologies, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-8768-000X
Sergey S KuznetsovDepartment of Pathology, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Konstantin S YashinUniversity Clinic, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Aleksander L MatveyevLaboratory of Multidimensional Signal Processing, Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.ORCID 0000-0001-9642-6580
Aleksander A SovetskyLaboratory of Wave Methods for Studying Structurally Inhomogeneous Media, Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Lev A MatveevLaboratory of Wave Methods for Studying Structurally Inhomogeneous Media, Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Anton A PlekhanovInstitute of Experimental Oncology and Biomedical Technologies, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.ORCID 0000-0003-0301-5358
Alexey Y VorontsovDepartment of Oncology, Nizhny Novgorod Regional Oncologic Hospital, 603126 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Vladimir Y ZaitsevLaboratory of Wave Methods for Studying Structurally Inhomogeneous Media, Institute of Applied Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Natalia D GladkovaInstitute of Experimental Oncology and Biomedical Technologies, Privolzhsky Research Medical University, 603950 Nizhny Novgorod, Russia.
Privolzhsky Research Medical University · RUInstitute of Applied Physics · RUNizhny Novgorod Regional Clinical Oncology Center · RU

Funding

Russian Science Foundation 18-75-10068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The possibility to assess molecular-biological and morphological features of particular breast cancer types can improve the precision of resection margin detection and enable accurate determining of the tumor aggressiveness, which is important for treatment selection. To enable reliable differentiation of breast-cancer subtypes and evaluation of resection margin, without performing conventional histological procedures, here we apply cross-polarization optical coherence tomography (CP-OCT) and compare it with a novel variant of compressional optical coherence elastography (C-OCE) in terms of the diagnostic accuracy (Ac) with histological verification. The study used 70 excised breast cancer specimens with different morphological structure and molecular status (Luminal A, Luminal B, Her2/Neo+, non-luminal and triple-negative cancer). Our first aim was to formulate convenient criteria of visual assessment of CP-OCT and C-OCE images intended (i) to differentiate tumorous and non-tumorous tissues and (ii) to enable more precise differentiation among different malignant states. We identified such criteria based on the presence of heterogeneities and characteristics of signal attenuation in CP-OCT images, as well as the presence of inclusions/mosaic structures combined with visually feasible assessment of several stiffness grades in C-OCE images. Secondly, we performed a blinded reader study of the Ac of C-OCE versus CP-OCT, for delineation of tumorous versus non-tumorous tissues followed by identification of breast cancer subtypes. For tumor detection, C-OCE showed higher specificity than CP-OCT (97.5% versus 93.3%) and higher Ac (96.0 versus 92.4%). For the first time, the Ac of C-OCE and CP-OCT were evaluated for differentiation between non-invasive and invasive breast cancer (90.4% and 82.5%, respectively). Furthermore, for invasive cancers, the difference between invasive but low-aggressive and highly-aggressive subtypes can be detected. For differentiation between non-tumorous tissue and low-aggressive breast-cancer subtypes, Ac was 95.7% for C-OCE and 88.1% for CP-OCT. For differentiation between non-tumorous tissue and highly-aggressive breast cancers, Ac was found to be 98.3% for C-OCE and 97.2% for CP-OCT. In all cases C-OCE showed better diagnostic parameters independently of the tumor type. These findings confirm the high potential of OCT-based examinations for rapid and accurate diagnostics during breast conservation surgery.

Indexed as

breast cancercompressional optical coherence elastography (C-OCE)cross-polarization optical coherence tomography (CP-OCT)image assessment

Identifiers

PMID33255263
PMCPMC7760404
OpenAlexW3108159441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.