Lipid-weighted intraoperative photoacoustic tomography of breast tumors: Volumetric comparison to preoperative MRI.
Acoustic transducers
Breast cancer
Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI
Intraoperative imaging
Lipid weighted imaging
Photoacoustic tomography
Tumor volume
Journal
Photoacoustics
ISSN: 2213-5979
Titre abrégé: Photoacoustics
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101622604
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
11
09
2019
revised:
07
01
2020
accepted:
29
01
2020
entrez:
20
5
2020
pubmed:
20
5
2020
medline:
20
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With a lifetime risk of 1 in 8, breast cancer continues to be a major concern for women and their physicians. The optimal treatment of the disease depends on the stage of the cancer at diagnosis, which is typically assessed using medical imaging. However, currently employed imaging systems for breast tumor measurement rarely agree perfectly. Our group developed an Intraoperative Photoacoustic Screening (iPAS) soft tissue scanner featuring high bulk tissue sensitivity, a clinically compatible scan-time of 6 min, imaging depths greater than 2 cm and the capability to visualize whole breast tumors based on their lipid, rather than hemoglobin, profile. Here, we report on the first clinical experience with breast cancer patients by comparing tumor-measurement using iPAS, preoperative dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and gold-standard pathology. Tumor size was measured volumetrically for iPAS and DCE-MRI, and separately using maximum diameters for pathology, DCE-MRI and iPAS. Comparisons were performed using Pearson's correlation coefficients, and the non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Twelve consecutive patients were included in the study, contingent on pathologically documented invasive carcinoma. iPAS volumetric tumor size was positively correlated to DCE-MRI (Pearson's r = 0.78, p = 0.003) and not significantly different (Wilcoxon, p = 0.97). In comparison to pathology, tumor diameters given by iPAS were positively correlated (Pearson's r = 0.87, p = 0.0002) and significantly different (Wilcoxon, p = 0.0015). The results indicated that volumetric-measurement of invasive breast tumors with iPAS is similar to that of DCE-MRI. On the other hand, tumor diameter measurements were less reliable. Beyond enhancing surgical specimen examination, an extension of this technology to diagnostic imaging promises a new perspective on tumor assessment, potentially improving our current understanding and treatment of breast cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32426228
doi: 10.1016/j.pacs.2020.100165
pii: S2213-5979(20)30005-7
pii: 100165
pmc: PMC7226881
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100165Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Author(s).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no relevant financial interests in the manuscript and no other potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Eur J Radiol. 2007 Feb;61(2):192-4
pubmed: 17164080
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Jan-Feb;65(1):5-29
pubmed: 25559415
Eur J Radiol. 2003 Dec;48(3):285-92
pubmed: 14652148
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 17;10(3):e0117322
pubmed: 25781469
J Nucl Med. 2016 Feb;57 Suppl 1:17S-26S
pubmed: 26834096
Phys Med Biol. 2009 Jun 7;54(11):3303-14
pubmed: 19430108
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2005 Jan;71(1 Pt 2):016706
pubmed: 15697763
Opt Express. 2012 Apr 9;20(8):8726-31
pubmed: 22513583
Opt Express. 2007 Sep 17;15(19):12277-85
pubmed: 19547596
J Biomed Opt. 2019 May;24(5):1-12
pubmed: 31111698
BMC Cancer. 2013 Jul 05;13:328
pubmed: 23826951
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Jan;45(2):228-47
pubmed: 19097774
Med Phys. 2013 Dec;40(12):121915
pubmed: 24320526
Photoacoustics. 2017 Jun 04;7:20-26
pubmed: 28652976
Clin Breast Cancer. 2017 Jul;17(4):245-255
pubmed: 28209330
Radiology. 2014 Jul;272(1):79-90
pubmed: 24620911
Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Dec;18(6):e1247-e1250
pubmed: 30241967
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 May;15(5):1297-303
pubmed: 18259820
Ann Surg Oncol. 2015 Nov;22(12):3816-23
pubmed: 25707494
Int J Surg Oncol. 2012;2012:585670
pubmed: 23304479
J Biomed Opt. 2017 Jan 1;22(1):15006
pubmed: 28138693
Med Phys. 2013 Nov;40(11):113301
pubmed: 24320471
Science. 2012 Mar 23;335(6075):1458-62
pubmed: 22442475
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Jul;110(1):21-5
pubmed: 24888482
Eur J Radiol. 2007 Feb;61(2):212-5
pubmed: 17145155
Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2013;2013:1148-51
pubmed: 24109896
J Clin Imaging Sci. 2013 Sep 30;3:41
pubmed: 24228210
J Biomed Opt. 2009 Mar-Apr;14(2):024007
pubmed: 19405737
Breast J. 2005 May-Jun;11(3):204-9
pubmed: 15871707
Radiographics. 2009 Jul-Aug;29(4):1179-89
pubmed: 19605664
J Ultrasound Med. 1997 Dec;16(12):791-7
pubmed: 9401992
Biomed Opt Express. 2011 Sep 1;2(9):2649-54
pubmed: 21991554
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 16;7:40683
pubmed: 28091596
Eur Radiol. 2016 Nov;26(11):3874-3887
pubmed: 26945762
World J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;5(2):61-70
pubmed: 24829852
Ann Surg Oncol. 2016 Mar;23(3):789-95
pubmed: 26467456