MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4310535641 · doi:10.1158/1940-6215.dcis22-b021

Abstract B021: Use of wide field optical coherence tomography (WF-OCT) in margin assessment during breast conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

2022· article· en· W4310535641 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Amelia B. Tower, Andrew Berkeley

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Prevention Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueMRI in cancer diagnosis
Établissements canadiensOntario Medical Association
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineDuctal carcinomaMammographyBreast-conserving surgeryMalignancyRadiologyOptical coherence tomographyBiopsySurgical marginBreast imagingRadiographyNuclear medicineBreast cancerPathologySurgeryMastectomyCancerResection

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: To assess the utility of a novel imaging technology for intraoperative margin assessment in breast conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Background: The multi-focal nature of DCIS presents a challenge to ensuring negative margins during BCS. Routine methods for intraoperative margin assessment, such as specimen radiography, ultrasound, cavity margins, and touch prep cytology each have specific limitations, including operator skill, time delay, probe position, and specimen completeness. A more recent method, wide field optical coherence tomography (WF-OCT), enables real-time tissue visualization at up to 2 mm of depth with the ability to use image-based machine learning to identify regions of interest suspicious for residual malignancy. Methods: Two adult females with biopsy-proven DCIS and one with invasive carcinoma underwent BCS following routine surveillance mammography and were prospectively evaluated. Primary lesions were imaged intraoperatively with specimen radiography and a WF-OCT imaging device (OTIS, Perimeter Medical AI, Toronto, Canada); images from both modalities were read to identify potential residual malignancy, and additional tissue was excised as indicated. Permanent histopathology was compared to imaging results. Results: The first patient (76 y/o, BI-RADS 4B, 1.6 cm) underwent BCS and the excised sample was 4 x 3.7 x 3.2 cm. By radiography, the biopsy clip and localization reflector were within the specimen and margins appeared satisfactory; WF-OCT demonstrated residual disease at the inferior margin and additional tissue was excised. Permanent histology showed DCIS involvement of inferior primary margin; additional margin excision contained DCIS and was negative. The second patient (64 y/o, BI-RADS 4B, 1 cm) underwent BCS and the excised sample was 4 x 3.5 x 3.5. By radiography, the biopsy clip and reflector were within the specimen and margins appeared satisfactory; WF-OCT showed residual disease at the inferior and posterior margins and additional tissue was excised. Permanent histology demonstrated DCIS within 1 mm and pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) microns from primary inferior margin; the additional inferior sample was margin negative, and posterior sample contained pleomorphic LCIS and was margin negative. The last patient (76 y/o, BI-RADS 5, 1.9 x 1.9 x 1.7 cm) underwent BCS and the excised sample was 6.5 x 5.3 x 4.2 cm. By radiography, the biopsy clip and localization reflector were within the specimen and margins appeared satisfactory; WF-OCT showed residual disease at the lateral margin and also revealed occult DCIS not found on biopsy. Additional tissue was taken until margin clearance by WF-OCT. Permanent histology demonstrated DCIS to <1 mm of primary lateral margin; the additional excision contained DCIS and was margin negative. Conclusions: In this case series of 3 adult females undergoing BCS for breast carcinoma, WF-OCT was a beneficial adjunctive imaging modality to specimen radiography for margin assessment. Citation Format: Amelia B. Tower, Andrew Berkeley. Use of wide field optical coherence tomography (WF-OCT) in margin assessment during breast conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Rethinking DCIS: An Opportunity for Prevention?; 2022 Sep 8-11; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2022;15(12 Suppl_1): Abstract nr B021.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,130
Tête enseignante GPT0,427
Écart entre enseignants0,297 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Prevention ResearchMême sujetMRI in cancer diagnosisTravaux en français237 207