Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38517441›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Intraoperative Evaluation of Breast Tissues During Breast Cancer Operations Using the MasSpec Pen.

Kyana Y Garza, Mary E King, Chandandeep Nagi, Rachel J DeHoog, Jialing Zhang, Marta Sans, Anna Krieger, Clara L Feider, Alena V Bensussan, Michael F Keating and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

21 authors.

Kyana Y GarzaDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Mary E KingDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Chandandeep NagiDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Rachel J DeHoogDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Jialing ZhangDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Marta SansDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Anna KriegerDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Clara L FeiderDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Alena V BensussanDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Michael F KeatingDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
John Q LinDepartment of Chemistry, The University of Texas at Austin.
Min Woo SunDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Robert TibshiraniDepartment of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Christopher PirkoMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Kirtan A BrahmbhattMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Ahmed R Al-FartosiMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Alastair M ThompsonMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Elizabeth BonefasMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
James SuliburkMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Stacey A CarterMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Livia S EberlinMichael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Funding

Advanced Development of the MasSpec Pen for Cancer Diagnosis and Surgical Margin EvaluationR33CA229068 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN · PI SCHIAVINATO EBERLIN, LIVIA · 2019 to 2021
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS R33 CA229068
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Surgery with complete tumor resection remains the main treatment option for patients with breast cancer. Yet, current technologies are limited in providing accurate assessment of breast tissue in vivo, warranting development of new technologies for surgical guidance. Objective: To evaluate the performance of the MasSpec Pen for accurate intraoperative assessment of breast tissues and surgical margins based on metabolic and lipid information. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this diagnostic study conducted between February 23, 2017, and August 19, 2021, the mass spectrometry-based device was used to analyze healthy breast and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) banked tissue samples from adult patients undergoing breast surgery for ductal carcinomas or nonmalignant conditions. Fresh-frozen tissue samples and touch imprints were analyzed in a laboratory. Intraoperative in vivo and ex vivo breast tissue analyses were performed by surgical staff in operating rooms (ORs) within 2 different hospitals at the Texas Medical Center. Molecular data were used to build statistical classifiers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prediction results of tissue analyses from classification models were compared with gross assessment, frozen section analysis, and/or final postoperative pathology to assess accuracy. Results: All data acquired from the 143 banked tissue samples, including 79 healthy breast and 64 IDC tissues, were included in the statistical analysis. Data presented rich molecular profiles of healthy and IDC banked tissue samples, with significant changes in relative abundances observed for several metabolic species. Statistical classifiers yielded accuracies of 95.6%, 95.5%, and 90.6% for training, validation, and independent test sets, respectively. A total of 25 participants enrolled in the clinical, intraoperative study; all were female, and the median age was 58 years (IQR, 44-66 years). Intraoperative testing of the technology was successfully performed by surgical staff during 25 breast operations. Of 273 intraoperative analyses performed during 25 surgical cases, 147 analyses from 22 cases were subjected to statistical classification. Testing of the classifiers on 147 intraoperative mass spectra yielded 95.9% agreement with postoperative pathology results. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this diagnostic study suggest that the mass spectrometry-based system could be clinically valuable to surgeons and patients by enabling fast molecular-based intraoperative assessment of in vivo and ex vivo breast tissue samples and surgical margins.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsAdultBreastFemaleHumansMargins of ExcisionMass SpectrometryMastectomyMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID38517441
PMCPMC10960202

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.