ArticleAmerican journal of otolaryngology
Elastic scattering spectroscopy for intraoperative oral cancer mucosal margin guidance: Initial results from a 104 patient cohort.
Article in American journal of otolaryngology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A prospective cohort study testing whether oral cavity mucosal tissue variability influences elastic scattering spectroscopy (ESS) measures.American journal of otolaryngologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess Elastic Scattering Spectroscopy (ESS) classification accuracy of benign vs malignant tissue obtained during intra-operative oral cancer resection.
methodsThe study comprised 104 patients with a biopsy positive for oral cancer (N = 85) or dysplasia (N = 19) who were scheduled to undergo surgical excision. ESS measurements were obtained intraoperatively on and immediately adjacent to the lesion within the planned resection margin prior to excision, and on contralateral normal-site control tissue. Two-millimeter biopsies were obtained from tumor and margin tissue. All measurements were evaluated using Leave One Person Out (LOPO) AI-assisted statistical algorithms. Three analyses evaluated ESS diagnostic accuracy: one at the sample level, one at the pooled sample patient level, and one using only diagnostically variable biopsy co-registered margin samples. Statistical analyses included sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC).
resultsDiagnostic accuracy at the sample level yielded sensitivity = 82 %, specificity = 84 %, and AUC = 0.91. Pooling samples within each patient yielded sensitivity = 94 %, specificity = 87 %, and AUC = 0.95. Sample level diagnostic accuracy at the margin yielded sensitivity = 76 %, specificity = 50 %, and AUC = 0.70, but prioritizing sensitivity, yielded a sensitivity = 90 %, specificity = 30 %, with AUC = 0.70.
conclusionThe ESS device demonstrated high sensitivity and appropriate specificity when differentiating benign from malignant tissue. Discriminant ability increased when samples were pooled within patients, informing future protocols for evaluating intraoperative ESS measures. These data are very promising and support the contention that ESS could be a valuable adjunct tool that facilitates comprehensive and efficient assessment of surgical margins.
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.