4.6 Article

Comparison of morphologic criteria for actinic keratosis and squamous cell carcinoma using in vivo multiphoton tomography

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 218-222

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/exd.12912

Keywords

cell density; epidermis; hornification; intercellular space nucleus diameter; nucleus; cytoplasm ratio

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The routine diagnostic procedure of actinic keratosis (AK) and invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is a histological examination after taking a biopsy. In the past decades, non-invasive optical methods for skin examination have been developed. Patients with clinical diagnosis of AK or SCC were examined. The morphological criteria were determined for healthy, AK and SCC skin and compared for statistically significant differences. In this study, the applicability of multiphoton tomography (MPT) as an in vivo diagnostic tool for AK and SCC was evaluated. Changes in the morphology of the keratinocytes such as broadened epidermis, large intercellular spaces, enlarged nucleus and a large variance in cell shape could easily be recognized. The cell nuclei of AK and SCC were significantly larger compared to healthy skin cells in all cell layers. The nucleus-cytoplasm ratio was also significantly higher for AK and SCC than for the healthy skin cells. It was even higher in SCC compared to spinous and basal cell layer of AK. The cell density in AK and SCC was significantly lower than in the basal and spinous cell layers of healthy skin. In SCC, the cell density was significantly lower than in AK. Concerning the intercellular spaces, significant differences were found for AK and healthy skin in spinous and basal cell layer and for SCC compared to AK and healthy skin. In this study, MPT proved to be a valuable noninvasive imaging method for in vivo detection and discrimination of AK and SCC from healthy skin.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available