Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35224879›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2022

Human study on cancer diagnostic probe (CDP) for real-time excising of breast positive cavity side margins based on tracing hypoxia glycolysis; checking diagnostic accuracy in non-neoadjuvant cases.

Zohreh Sadat Miripour, Fereshteh Abbasvandi, Parisa Aghaee, Fatemeh Shojaeian, Mahsa Faramarzpour, Pooneh Mohaghegh, Parisa Hoseinpour, Naser Namdar, Morteza Hassanpour Amiri, Hadi Ghafari and 10 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

20 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Zohreh Sadat MiripourNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Fereshteh AbbasvandiNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Parisa AghaeeNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Fatemeh ShojaeianCancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mahsa FaramarzpourNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Pooneh MohagheghNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Parisa HoseinpourSEPAS Pathology Laboratory, Tehran, Iran.
Naser NamdarNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Morteza Hassanpour AmiriNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Hadi GhafariNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad ParnianiPathology Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad KavianiInstitute of Cancer, Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sedigheh AlamdarDepartment of Pathobiology, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Shahid Hemmat Highway, Tehran, Iran.
Sahar NajafiKhoshnooNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Hassan SanatiATMP Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Mahna MaparNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Nastaran SadeghianATMP Department, Breast Cancer Research Center, Motamed Cancer Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad Esmaeil AkbariCancer Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Masud YunesianDepartment of Environmental Health, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohammad AbdolahadNano Bio Electronic Devices Lab, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-1091-3095
University of Tehran · IRAcademic Center for Education, Culture and Research · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRImam Khomeini Hospital · IRIran University of Medical Sciences · IRScottish Environment Protection Agency · GBTehran University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer diagnostic probe (CDP) had been developed to detect involved breast cavity side margins in real-time (Miripour et al. Bioeng Transl Med. e10236.). Here, we presented the results of the in vivo human model CDP studies on non-neoadjuvant cases.

methodsThis study is a prospective, blind comparison to a gold standard, and the medical group recruited patients. CDP and frozen data were achieved before the permanent pathology experiment. The main outcome of the study is surgical margin status. From November 2018 to April 2020, 202 patients were registered, and 188 were assigned for the study. Breast-conserving surgery at any age or gender, re-surgery due to re-currency, or involved margins are acceptable. Patients must be non-neoadjuvant. The reliability of CDP scoring had been evaluated by the pathology of the scored IMs. Then, three models of the study were designed to compare CDP with the frozen sections. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and AUC were measured based on the permanent postoperative pathology gold standard.

resultsA matched clinical diagnostic categorization between the pathological results of the tested IMs and response peaks of CDP on 113 cases, was reported (sensitivity = 97%, specificity = 89.3%, accuracy = 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) = 84.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) = 98%). Study A showed the independent ability of CDP for IM scoring (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 90%, accuracy = 90%, PPV = 22.2%, and NPV = 99.2%). Study B showed the complementary role of CDP to cover the missed lesions of frozen sections (sensitivity = 93.8%, specificity = 91%, accuracy = 91%, PPV = 55.6%, and NPV = 99.2%). Study C showed the ability of CDP in helping the pathologist to reduce his/her frozen miss judgment (specificity = 92%, accuracy = 93%, PPV = 42.1%, and NPV = 100%). Results were reported based on the post-surgical permanent pathology gold standard.

conclusionCDP scoring ability in intra-operative margin detection was verified on non-neoadjuvant breast cancer patients. Non-invasive real-time diagnosis of IMs with pathological values may make CDP a distinct tool with handheld equipment to increase the prognosis of breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsMargins of ExcisionFemaleGlycolysisHumansHypoxiaProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificitycancer surgeryclinical studyhypoxia assisted glycolysispathology

Identifiers

PMID35224879
PMCPMC8986141
OpenAlexW4214504142

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.