Setting Standards for Reporting and Quantification in Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Setting Standards for Reporting and Quantification in Fluorescence-Guided Surgery.
Autorzy:: Hoogstins C; Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.; Centre for Human Drug Research and Leiden Center for Academic Drug Research, Zernikedreef 8, 2333, CL, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Burggraaf JJ; Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Koller M; Department of Surgery, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and Intensive Care, University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713, GZ, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Handgraaf H; Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Boogerd L; Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
van Dam G; Department of Surgery, Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and Intensive Care, University Medical Center, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713, GZ, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Vahrmeijer A; Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333, ZA, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Burggraaf J; Centre for Human Drug Research and Leiden Center for Academic Drug Research, Zernikedreef 8, 2333, CL, Leiden, the Netherlands. .; Leiden Academic Center for Drug Research, Rapenburg 70, 2311 EZ, Leiden, the Netherlands. .
Źródło:: Molecular imaging and biology [Mol Imaging Biol] 2019 Feb; Vol. 21 (1), pp. 11-18.
Typ publikacji:: Comparative Study; Evaluation Study; Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Publication: 2005- : New York, NY : Springer
Original Publication: New York, NY : Elsevier Science, c2001-
MeSH Terms:: Image Processing, Computer-Assisted*/instrumentation
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted*/methods
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted*/standards
Monitoring, Intraoperative*/instrumentation
Monitoring, Intraoperative*/methods
Monitoring, Intraoperative*/standards
Practice Guidelines as Topic*
Optical Imaging/*methods
Optical Imaging/*standards
Surgery, Computer-Assisted/*methods
Surgery, Computer-Assisted/*standards
Animals ; Calibration ; Humans ; Neoplasms/diagnosis ; Neoplasms/pathology ; Neoplasms/surgery ; Optical Imaging/instrumentation ; Reference Standards ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design/standards ; Risk Assessment/standards ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Signal-To-Noise Ratio ; Surgery, Computer-Assisted/instrumentation
References:: Surg Innov. 2015 Feb;22(1):20-5. (PMID: 24902685)
Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Jun 15;22(12):2929-38. (PMID: 27306792)
Med Phys. 2014 Feb;41(2):022105. (PMID: 24506637)
J Biomed Opt. 2009 Nov-Dec;14(6):064012. (PMID: 20059250)
Nat Med. 2011 Sep 18;17(10):1315-9. (PMID: 21926976)
J Biomed Opt. 2016 Aug 1;21(8):80901. (PMID: 27533438)
J Biomed Opt. 2012 Jun;17(6):066001. (PMID: 22734757)
J Nucl Med. 2016 Jan;57(1):144-50. (PMID: 26449839)
Eur Surg Res. 2011;47(2):90-7. (PMID: 21720166)
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Dec;1(4):283-290. (PMID: 28404198)
J Biomed Opt. 2006 Jan-Feb;11(1):014007. (PMID: 16526884)
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2016;25(1):48-53. (PMID: 25950124)
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017 Jun;14(6):347-364. (PMID: 28094261)
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998 Feb 9;838:29-45. (PMID: 9511793)
Ann Surg. 2016 Dec;264(6):1110-1115. (PMID: 27828822)
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015 Jul;25(6):1086-93. (PMID: 25768079)
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013 Sep;10(9):507-18. (PMID: 23881033)
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 Aug 15;21(16):3658-66. (PMID: 25904751)
Int J Cancer. 2015 Oct 15;137(8):1910-20. (PMID: 25895046)
Oncotarget. 2016 May 31;7(22):32144-55. (PMID: 27014973)
Cancer Res. 2017 Feb 1;77(3):623-631. (PMID: 27879266)
R Soc Open Sci. 2014 Nov 19;1(3):140216. (PMID: 26064558)
Oncotarget. 2017 Mar 28;8(13):21054-21066. (PMID: 28416744)
Mol Imaging Biol. 2017 Oct;19(5):645-655. (PMID: 28155079)
Mol Imaging Biol. 2014 Apr;16(2):147-51. (PMID: 24249642)
J Vis Exp. 2014 Sep 19;(91):51776. (PMID: 25286185)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Fluorescence; Image analysis; Optical imaging; Phantom; Quantification; Signal-to-noise ratio
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20180531 Date Completed: 20190729 Latest Revision: 20200306
Update Code:: 20240105
DOI:: 10.1007/s11307-018-1220-0
PMID:: 29845427
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Purpose: Intraoperative fluorescence imaging (FI) is a promising technique that could potentially guide oncologic surgeons toward more radical resections and thus improve clinical outcome. Despite the increase in the number of clinical trials, fluorescent agents and imaging systems for intraoperative FI, a standardized approach for imaging system performance assessment and post-acquisition image analysis is currently unavailable.
Procedures: We conducted a systematic, controlled comparison between two commercially available imaging systems using a novel calibration device for FI systems and various fluorescent agents. In addition, we analyzed fluorescence images from previous studies to evaluate signal-to-background ratio (SBR) and determinants of SBR.
Results: Using the calibration device, imaging system performance could be quantified and compared, exposing relevant differences in sensitivity. Image analysis demonstrated a profound influence of background noise and the selection of the background on SBR.
Conclusions: In this article, we suggest clear approaches for the quantification of imaging system performance assessment and post-acquisition image analysis, attempting to set new standards in the field of FI.

Informacja