ArticlePloS one2021
Assessment of breast cancer surgical margins with multimodal optical microscopy: A feasibility clinical study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Accuracy of Ex-vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy in Margin Assessment of Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review.The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society · 2023Pooled it
- Detection of margin positivity in breast cancer using fluorescence and diffuse reflectance imaging.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the Influence of Geodimensional and Histological Parameters on the Need for Margin Widening in Breast Lesions Marked With Magnetic Seeds.European journal of breast health · 2024Article
- Comprehensive Surface Histology of Fresh Resection Margins With Rapid Open-Top Light-Sheet (OTLS) Microscopy.IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering · 2023Article
- Image Translation of Breast Ultrasound to Pseudo Anatomical Display by CycleGAN.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Providing surgical margin information during breast cancer surgery is crucial for the success of the procedure. The margin is defined as the distance from the tumor to the cut surface of the resection specimen. The consensus among surgeons and radiation oncologists is that there should be no tumor left within 1 to maximum 2 mm from the surface of the surgical specimen. If a positive margin remains, there is substantial risk for tumor recurrence, which may also result in potentially reduced cosmesis and eventual need for mastectomy. In this paper we report a novel multimodal optical imaging instrument based on combined high-resolution confocal microscopy-optical coherence tomography imaging for assessing the presence of potential positive margins on surgical specimens. Since rapid specimen analysis is critical during surgery, this instrument also includes a fluorescence imaging channel to enable rapid identification of the areas of the specimen that have potential positive margins. This is possible by specimen incubation with a cancer specific agent prior to imaging. In this study we used a quenched contrast agent, which is activated by cancer specific enzymes, such as urokinase plasminogen activators (uPA). Using this agent or a similar one, one may limit the use of high-resolution optical imaging to only fluorescence-highlighted areas for visualizing tissue morphology at the sub-cellular scale and confirming or ruling out cancer presence. Preliminary evaluation of this technology was performed on 20 surgical specimens and testing of the optical imaging findings was performed against histopathology. The combination of the three imaging modes allowed for high correlation between optical image analysis and histological ground-truth. The initial results are encouraging, showing instrument capability to assess margins on clinical specimens with a positive predictive value of 1.0 and a negative predictive value of 0.83.
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.