SignificanceBreast-conserving surgery (BCS) is limited by high rates of positive margins and re-operative interventions. Fluorescence-guided surgery seeks to detect the entire lesion in real time, thus guiding the surgeons to remove all the tumor at the index procedure. AimOur aim was to identify the optimal combination of a camera system and fluorophore for fluorescence-guided BCS. ApproachA systematic review of medical databases using the terms “fluorescence,” “breast cancer,” “surgery,” and “fluorescence imaging” was performed. Cameras were compared using the ratio between the fluorescent signal from the tumor compared to background fluorescence, as well as diagnostic accuracy measures, such as sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value. ResultsTwenty-one studies identified 14 camera systems using nine different fluorophores. Twelve cameras worked in the infrared spectrum. Ten studies reported on the difference in strength of the fluorescence signal between cancer and normal tissue, with results ranging from 1.72 to 4.7. In addition, nine studies reported on whether any tumor remained in the resection cavity (5.4% to 32.5%). To date, only three studies used the fluorescent signal for guidance during real BCS. Diagnostic accuracy ranged from 63% to 98% sensitivity, 32% to 97% specificity, and 75% to 100% positive predictive value. ConclusionIn this systematic review, all the studies reported a clinically significant difference in signal between the tumor and normal tissue using various camera/fluorophore combinations. However, given the heterogeneity in protocols, including camera setup, fluorophore studied, data acquisition, and reporting structure, it was impossible to determine the optimal camera and fluorophore combination for use in BCS. It would be beneficial to develop a standardized reporting structure using similar metrics to provide necessary data for a comparison between camera systems.
|
