Tissue diagnosis during colorectal cancer surgery using optical sensing: an in vivo study.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer surgery there is a delicate balance between complete removal of the tumor and sparing as much healthy tissue as possible. Especially in rectal cancer, intraoperative tissue recognition could be of great benefit in preventing positive resection margins and sparing as much healthy tissue as possible. To better guide the surgeon, we evaluated the accuracy of diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (DRS) for tissue characterization during colorectal cancer surgery and determined the added value of DRS when compared to clinical judgement. METHODS: DRS spectra were obtained from fat, healthy colorectal wall and tumor tissue during colorectal cancer surgery and results were compared to histopathology examination of the measurement locations. All spectra were first normalized at 800 nm, thereafter two support vector machines (SVM) were trained using a tenfold cross-validation. With the first SVM fat was separated from healthy colorectal wall and tumor tissue, the second SVM distinguished healthy colorectal wall from tumor tissue. RESULTS: Patients were included based on preoperative imaging, indicating advanced local stage colorectal cancer. Based on the measurement results of 32 patients, the classification resulted in a mean accuracy for fat, healthy colorectal wall and tumor of 0.92, 0.89 and 0.95 respectively. If the classification threshold was adjusted such that no false negatives were allowed, the percentage of false positive measurement locations by DRS was 25% compared to 69% by clinical judgement. CONCLUSION: This study shows the potential of DRS for the use of tissue classification during colorectal cancer surgery. Especially the low false positive rate obtained for a false negative rate of zero shows the added value for the surgeons. Trail registration This trail was performed under approval from the internal review board committee (Dutch Trail Register NTR5315), registered on 04/13/2015, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5175 .

Low-dose CT angiography of the abdominal aorta and reduced contrast medium volume: Assessment of image quality and radiation dose.

AIM: To determine the effect of using 80 kV tube voltage and a reduced amount of contrast medium on the image quality and radiation dose of computed tomography angiography (CTA) of the abdominal aorta. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who were referred for a CTA examination of the abdominal aorta were included in this technical efficacy study. Thirty patients were divided randomly into two groups. Fifteen patients underwent a dual-energy CT (DECT) protocol (Group A). Fifteen patients were scanned with the use of an automated tube potential selection algorithm tool (Group B). In both protocols, a test bolus injection of 10 ml ioversol (350 mg iodine/ml) was used, followed by 20 ml of 1:1 saline-diluted contrast medium. Quantitative analysis comprised determination of the mean attenuation and contrast-to-noise ratio. Qualitative image analysis was performed independently by five radiologists. The estimated radiation dose in terms of CT dose index and effective dose was recorded and compared with a standard 120 kV protocol. RESULTS: In Group B, six patients underwent CTA at 80 kV, seven patients underwent CTA at 100 kV and two patients underwent CTA at 120 kV. The mean contrast-enhancement values of Group A (80 kV) and the 80 kV subgroup of Group B were 16.5% and 27.6% higher compared to the 100 kV subgroup of Group B, these differences were, however, not significant. There were no significant differences in mean image quality between groups. In patients undergoing CTA at 80 kV the effective dose decreased by up to 51.3% compared to a conventional 120 kV CTA protocol. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the hypothesis that 80 kV in CTA of the abdominal aorta can reliably be used with only 30 ml contrast medium in total and a 50% reduction in radiation dose. The overall image quality was diagnostically adequate; however, it appeared to be suboptimal in patients with a BMI above 28 kg/m(2).