Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38440101›Full record

SynthesisJournal of biomedical optics2024

Fluorescence guided surgery imaging systems for breast cancer identification: a systematic review.

Martha S Kedrzycki, Hazel T W Chon, Maria Leiloglou, Vadzim Chalau, Daniel R Leff, Daniel S Elson

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of biomedical optics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martha S KedrzyckiInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, Hamlyn Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3028-5743
Hazel T W ChonImperial College London, Department of Surgery and Cancer, London, United Kingdom.
Maria LeiloglouInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, Hamlyn Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Vadzim ChalauInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, Hamlyn Centre, London, United Kingdom.
Daniel R LeffInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, Hamlyn Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5310-1046
Daniel S ElsonInstitute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, Hamlyn Centre, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5578-3941
Imperial College London · GBNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UKWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Significance: Breast-conserving surgery (BCS) is limited by high rates of positive margins and re-operative interventions. Fluorescence-guided surgery seeks to detect the entire lesion in real time, thus guiding the surgeons to remove all the tumor at the index procedure. Aim: Our aim was to identify the optimal combination of a camera system and fluorophore for fluorescence-guided BCS. Approach: A systematic review of medical databases using the terms "fluorescence," "breast cancer," "surgery," and "fluorescence imaging" was performed. Cameras were compared using the ratio between the fluorescent signal from the tumor compared to background fluorescence, as well as diagnostic accuracy measures, such as sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. Results: Twenty-one studies identified 14 camera systems using nine different fluorophores. Twelve cameras worked in the infrared spectrum. Ten studies reported on the difference in strength of the fluorescence signal between cancer and normal tissue, with results ranging from 1.72 to 4.7. In addition, nine studies reported on whether any tumor remained in the resection cavity (5.4% to 32.5%). To date, only three studies used the fluorescent signal for guidance during real BCS. Diagnostic accuracy ranged from 63% to 98% sensitivity, 32% to 97% specificity, and 75% to 100% positive predictive value. Conclusion: In this systematic review, all the studies reported a clinically significant difference in signal between the tumor and normal tissue using various camera/fluorophore combinations. However, given the heterogeneity in protocols, including camera setup, fluorophore studied, data acquisition, and reporting structure, it was impossible to determine the optimal camera and fluorophore combination for use in BCS. It would be beneficial to develop a standardized reporting structure using similar metrics to provide necessary data for a comparison between camera systems.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFluorescent DyesHumansLightFluorescent Dyesbreast conserving surgeryfluorescence guided surgeryfluorescent camerasnear-infraredoptical filters

Identifiers

PMID38440101
PMCPMC10911048
OpenAlexW4392378127

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.