Quantification of tumor fluorescence during intraoperative optical cancer imaging.
Quantification of tumor fluorescence during intraoperative optical cancer imaging.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1038/srep16208
复制
发表时间：
2015-11-13
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Singhal S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Judy RP;Keating JJ;DeJesus EM;Jiang JX;Okusanya OT;Nie S;Holt DE;Arlauckas SP;Low PS;Delikatny EJ;Singhal S
术中光学癌症成像是一项新兴技术，外科医生利用荧光团来可视化肿瘤、识别肿瘤阳性边缘和含有转移的淋巴结。本研究比较了测量肿瘤荧光的仪器。三种成像系统（Spectropen、Glomax、Flocam）可在体外、小鼠异种移植物、组织模型和临床上测量和量化荧光信号背景比 (SBR)。评估标准包括荧光微小变化的检测、增加深度下信号检测的灵敏度以及使用的实用性。在体外，光谱法在检测荧光增量差异方面优于发光和数字成像（Ln[SBR] = 6.8 ± 0.6、2.4 ± 0.3、2.6 ± 0.1、p = 0.0001）。在荧光肿瘤细胞中，数字成像测量到的 SBR 高于发光（6.1±0.2 对比 4.3±0.4，p=0.001）。光谱学在识别小鼠肿瘤荧光方面比发光测定法和数字成像更敏感（SBR = 41.7 ± 11.5、5.1 ± 1.8、4.1 ± 0.9、p = 0.0001），并且在检测深度增加的荧光方面比数字成像更敏感（SBR = 7.0 ± 3.4 vs. 2.4 ± 0.5，p = 0.03）。最后，数字成像是最实用且最省时的。所有方法都检测到荧光的增量差异。光谱法对荧光的微小变化最敏感。考虑到数字成像的宽视野、背景噪声过滤能力以及对深度增加的敏感性，它是最实用的。
Intraoperative optical cancer imaging is an emerging technology in which surgeons employ fluorophores to visualize tumors, identify tumor-positive margins and lymph nodes containing metastases. This study compares instrumentation to measure tumor fluorescence. Three imaging systems (Spectropen, Glomax, Flocam) measured and quantified fluorescent signal-to-background ratios (SBR) in vitro, murine xenografts, tissue phantoms and clinically. Evaluation criteria included the detection of small changes in fluorescence, sensitivity of signal detection at increasing depths and practicality of use. In vitro, spectroscopy was superior in detecting incremental differences in fluorescence than luminescence and digital imaging (Ln[SBR] = 6.8 ± 0.6, 2.4 ± 0.3, 2.6 ± 0.1, p = 0.0001). In fluorescent tumor cells, digital imaging measured higher SBRs than luminescence (6.1 ± 0.2 vs. 4.3 ± 0.4, p = 0.001). Spectroscopy was more sensitive than luminometry and digital imaging in identifying murine tumor fluorescence (SBR = 41.7 ± 11.5, 5.1 ± 1.8, 4.1 ± 0.9, p = 0.0001), and more sensitive than digital imaging at detecting fluorescence at increasing depths (SBR = 7.0 ± 3.4 vs. 2.4 ± 0.5, p = 0.03). Lastly, digital imaging was the most practical and least time-consuming. All methods detected incremental differences in fluorescence. Spectroscopy was the most sensitive for small changes in fluorescence. Digital imaging was the most practical considering its wide field of view, background noise filtering capability, and sensitivity to increasing depth.