Comparison of Real-Time Fluorescence Confocal Digital Microscopy With Hematoxylin-Eosin-Stained Sections of Core-Needle Biopsy Specimens.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 03 2020
02 03 2020
Historique:
entrez:
6
3
2020
pubmed:
7
3
2020
medline:
12
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Strategies to procure high-quality core-needle biopsy (CNB) specimens are critical for making basic tissue diagnoses and for ancillary testing. To investigate acquisition of fluorescence confocal microscopy (FCM) images of interventional radiology (IR)-guided CNB in real time in the radiology suite and to compare the accuracy of FCM diagnoses with those of hematoxylin-eosin (H&E)-stained CNB sections. In this diagnostic study, FCM imaging of IR-guided CNBs was performed in the radiology suite at a major cancer center for patients with an imaging abnormality from August 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019. The time taken to acquire FCM images and the quality of FCM images based on percentage of interpretable tissue with optimal resolution was recorded. The FCM images were read by 2 pathologists and categorized as nondiagnostic, benign/atypical, or suspicious/malignant; these diagnoses were compared with those made using H&E-stained tissue sections. Cases with discrepant diagnosis were reassessed by the pathologists together for a consensus diagnosis. Data were analyzed from June 3 to July 19, 2019. Each IR-guided CNB was stained with 0.6mM acridine orange, subjected to FCM imaging, and then processed to generate H&E-stained sections. Mean time taken for acquisition of FCM images, quality of FCM images based on interpretable percentage of the image, and accuracy of diagnostic categorization based on FCM images compared with H&E-stained sections. A total of 105 patients (57 male [54.3%]; mean [SD] age, 63 [13] years) underwent IR-guided CNBs in a mean (SD) of 7 (2) minutes each. The FCM images showed at least 20% of the tissue with optimal quality in 101 CNB specimens (96.2%). The FCM images were accurately interpreted by the 2 pathologists in 100 of 105 cases (95.2%) (2 false-positive and 3 false-negative) and 90 of 105 cases (85.7%) (6 false-positive and 9 false-negative). A reassessment of 14 discordant diagnoses resulted in consensus diagnoses that were accurate in 101 of 105 cases (96.2%) (1 false-positive and 3 false-negative). The ease of acquisition of FCM images of acceptable quality and the high accuracy of the diagnoses suggest that FCM may be useful for rapid evaluation of IR-guided CNBs. This approach warrants further investigation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32134465
pii: 2762047
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.0476
pmc: PMC7059022
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fluorescent Dyes
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e200476Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P30 CA016672
Pays : United States
Références
Mod Pathol. 2014 Mar;27(3):460-71
pubmed: 24030744
Mod Pathol. 2017 Apr;30(4):499-508
pubmed: 28084342
Urology. 2016 Dec;98:195-199
pubmed: 27597632
Semin Oncol. 2016 Aug;43(4):484-91
pubmed: 27663480
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010 Jul;21(7):969-75
pubmed: 20304676
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Mar;143(3):288-298
pubmed: 30525931
Nat Biomed Eng. 2017 Dec;1(12):957-966
pubmed: 31015706
BJU Int. 2019 Sep;124(3):469-476
pubmed: 30908852
Brain Pathol. 2013 Jan;23(1):73-81
pubmed: 22882328
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Dec;32(12):2090-2096
pubmed: 29633358
Cancer Res. 2009 Sep 1;69(17):6770-2
pubmed: 19706749
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jan;149(1):303-10
pubmed: 25417171
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2018 Mar;142(3):396-401
pubmed: 29266968
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jun;180(6):1473-1480
pubmed: 30512198
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Nov;31(11):1023-31
pubmed: 24142049
Cancer Cytopathol. 2014 Nov;122(11):851-4
pubmed: 24946755
Diagn Cytopathol. 2016 Feb;44(2):87-90
pubmed: 26592851
J Biomed Opt. 2017 Mar 1;22(3):34002
pubmed: 28327961
Mod Pathol. 2019 Jul;32(8):1158-1167
pubmed: 30914763
Lab Invest. 2018 Jan;98(1):150-160
pubmed: 29131161
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 Jan;27(1):8-19
pubmed: 26626860
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Mar;143(3):305-313
pubmed: 30376375
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Sep;143(9):1052-1057
pubmed: 30763117
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug;10(8):437-50
pubmed: 23799370
J Oncol Pract. 2018 Oct 4;:JOP1800092
pubmed: 30285529
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015 Jul;139(7):907-12
pubmed: 25521802
Diagn Cytopathol. 2015 Oct;43(10):773-9
pubmed: 26119885
Dermatol Clin. 2016 Oct;34(4):497-504
pubmed: 27692455
Diagn Pathol. 2019 Jun 15;14(1):58
pubmed: 31202280
J Biomed Opt. 2013 Oct;18(10):106016
pubmed: 24165742
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Sep;143(9):1058-1068
pubmed: 31295016
Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Dec 1;18(23):6478-84
pubmed: 22912391
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 28;111(43):15304-9
pubmed: 25313045
Nat Biomed Eng. 2017 Jul;1(7):
pubmed: 29750130
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019 Sep;143(9):1069-1075
pubmed: 30892067