Human study on cancer diagnostic probe (CDP) for real-time excising of breast positive cavity side margins based on tracing hypoxia glycolysis; checking diagnostic accuracy in non-neoadjuvant cases.
cancer surgery
clinical study
hypoxia assisted glycolysis
pathology
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2022
04 2022
Historique:
revised:
25
10
2021
received:
13
07
2021
accepted:
18
11
2021
pubmed:
1
3
2022
medline:
9
4
2022
entrez:
28
2
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cancer diagnostic probe (CDP) had been developed to detect involved breast cavity side margins in real-time (Miripour et al. Bioeng Transl Med. e10236.). Here, we presented the results of the in vivo human model CDP studies on non-neoadjuvant cases. This study is a prospective, blind comparison to a gold standard, and the medical group recruited patients. CDP and frozen data were achieved before the permanent pathology experiment. The main outcome of the study is surgical margin status. From November 2018 to April 2020, 202 patients were registered, and 188 were assigned for the study. Breast-conserving surgery at any age or gender, re-surgery due to re-currency, or involved margins are acceptable. Patients must be non-neoadjuvant. The reliability of CDP scoring had been evaluated by the pathology of the scored IMs. Then, three models of the study were designed to compare CDP with the frozen sections. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and AUC were measured based on the permanent postoperative pathology gold standard. A matched clinical diagnostic categorization between the pathological results of the tested IMs and response peaks of CDP on 113 cases, was reported (sensitivity = 97%, specificity = 89.3%, accuracy = 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) = 84.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) = 98%). Study A showed the independent ability of CDP for IM scoring (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 90%, accuracy = 90%, PPV = 22.2%, and NPV = 99.2%). Study B showed the complementary role of CDP to cover the missed lesions of frozen sections (sensitivity = 93.8%, specificity = 91%, accuracy = 91%, PPV = 55.6%, and NPV = 99.2%). Study C showed the ability of CDP in helping the pathologist to reduce his/her frozen miss judgment (specificity = 92%, accuracy = 93%, PPV = 42.1%, and NPV = 100%). Results were reported based on the post-surgical permanent pathology gold standard. CDP scoring ability in intra-operative margin detection was verified on non-neoadjuvant breast cancer patients. Non-invasive real-time diagnosis of IMs with pathological values may make CDP a distinct tool with handheld equipment to increase the prognosis of breast cancer patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cancer diagnostic probe (CDP) had been developed to detect involved breast cavity side margins in real-time (Miripour et al. Bioeng Transl Med. e10236.). Here, we presented the results of the in vivo human model CDP studies on non-neoadjuvant cases.
METHODS
This study is a prospective, blind comparison to a gold standard, and the medical group recruited patients. CDP and frozen data were achieved before the permanent pathology experiment. The main outcome of the study is surgical margin status. From November 2018 to April 2020, 202 patients were registered, and 188 were assigned for the study. Breast-conserving surgery at any age or gender, re-surgery due to re-currency, or involved margins are acceptable. Patients must be non-neoadjuvant. The reliability of CDP scoring had been evaluated by the pathology of the scored IMs. Then, three models of the study were designed to compare CDP with the frozen sections. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and AUC were measured based on the permanent postoperative pathology gold standard.
RESULTS
A matched clinical diagnostic categorization between the pathological results of the tested IMs and response peaks of CDP on 113 cases, was reported (sensitivity = 97%, specificity = 89.3%, accuracy = 92%, positive predictive value (PPV) = 84.2%, and negative predictive value (NPV) = 98%). Study A showed the independent ability of CDP for IM scoring (sensitivity = 80%, specificity = 90%, accuracy = 90%, PPV = 22.2%, and NPV = 99.2%). Study B showed the complementary role of CDP to cover the missed lesions of frozen sections (sensitivity = 93.8%, specificity = 91%, accuracy = 91%, PPV = 55.6%, and NPV = 99.2%). Study C showed the ability of CDP in helping the pathologist to reduce his/her frozen miss judgment (specificity = 92%, accuracy = 93%, PPV = 42.1%, and NPV = 100%). Results were reported based on the post-surgical permanent pathology gold standard.
CONCLUSION
CDP scoring ability in intra-operative margin detection was verified on non-neoadjuvant breast cancer patients. Non-invasive real-time diagnosis of IMs with pathological values may make CDP a distinct tool with handheld equipment to increase the prognosis of breast cancer patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35224879
doi: 10.1002/cam4.4503
pmc: PMC8986141
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1630-1645Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
World J Clin Oncol. 2014 Aug 10;5(3):382-92
pubmed: 25114853
Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2014;6(4):210-8
pubmed: 25593696
Bioeng Transl Med. 2021 Jun 14;7(1):e10236
pubmed: 35079624
J Breast Cancer. 2012 Dec;15(4):412-9
pubmed: 23346170
J Surg Res. 2012 Sep;177(1):109-15
pubmed: 22516344
Oncogenesis. 2018 Jan 24;7(1):10
pubmed: 29362402
Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005 Mar;2(3):116-7
pubmed: 16264885
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Mar;15(3):843-7
pubmed: 17987337
Am J Clin Pathol. 2012 Nov;138(5):657-69
pubmed: 23086766
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Mar 06;12(3):
pubmed: 32155777
Sci Transl Med. 2017 Sep 6;9(406):
pubmed: 28878011
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2013 May;10(3):301-15
pubmed: 23668703
Ann Surg Oncol. 2002 Apr;9(3):256-65
pubmed: 11923132
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014 Jan;138(1):16-24
pubmed: 24377808
J Neurosurg Sci. 2018 Dec;62(6):704-717
pubmed: 30160080
Nature. 2009 Jun 18;459(7249):996-9
pubmed: 19494811
Cell Cycle. 2011 Aug 1;10(15):2440-9
pubmed: 21734470
Mod Pathol. 2011 Jul;24(7):917-23
pubmed: 21532546
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 16;6:21242
pubmed: 26878888
Ecancermedicalscience. 2020 Jan 23;14:1005
pubmed: 32104207
Int J Med Robot. 2022 Feb;18(1):e2335
pubmed: 34571582
Cancer. 1996 Jun 15;77(12):2529-37
pubmed: 8640702
Cancer Med. 2022 Apr;11(7):1630-1645
pubmed: 35224879
J Clin Oncol. 2005 Feb 10;23(5):1011-27
pubmed: 15585754
Ann Saudi Med. 2004 Mar-Apr;24(2):141-4
pubmed: 15323279
Adv Cancer Res. 2014;122:1-67
pubmed: 24974178
Semin Oncol. 2002 Dec;29(6 Suppl 16):15-8
pubmed: 12516034
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
Br J Surg. 2012 Jun;99(6):813-20
pubmed: 22492310
Adv Sci (Weinh). 2020 Mar 17;7(9):1901519
pubmed: 32382473
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1507-15
pubmed: 24516019
Breast Care (Basel). 2020 Jun;15(3):294-309
pubmed: 32774225
Front Oncol. 2017 Sep 25;7:211
pubmed: 28993797
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014 Apr;40(4):449-53
pubmed: 24468296
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001 Feb 21;93(4):309-14
pubmed: 11181778
Virchows Arch. 2010 Jul;457(1):53-61
pubmed: 20526721
BMC Cancer. 2013 Nov 10;13:538
pubmed: 24206539
Genes Dis. 2018 May 12;5(2):77-106
pubmed: 30258937
Breast Care (Basel). 2013 May;8(2):149-54
pubmed: 24415964
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Oct;14(10):2953-60
pubmed: 17674109
J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 10;32(14):1502-6
pubmed: 24711553