4.8 Article

Emerging optical methods for surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus

期刊

GUT
卷 64, 期 11, 页码 1816-1823

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306706

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-National Institutes of Health [U54 CA163059]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The rapid rise in incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has motivated the need for improved methods for surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus. Early neoplasia is flat in morphology and patchy in distribution and is difficult to detect with conventional white light endoscopy (WLE). Light offers numerous advantages for rapidly visualising the oesophagus, and advanced optical methods are being developed for wide-field and cross-sectional imaging to guide tissue biopsy and stage early neoplasia, respectively. We review key features of these promising methods and address their potential to improve detection of Barrett's neoplasia. The clinical performance of key advanced imaging technologies is reviewed, including (1) wide-field methods, such as high-definition WLE, chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, autofluorescence and trimodal imaging and (2) cross-sectional techniques, such as optical coherence tomography, optical frequency domain imaging and confocal laser endomicroscopy. Some of these instruments are being adapted for molecular imaging to detect specific biological targets that are over-expressed in Barrett's neoplasia. Gene expression profiles are being used to identify early targets that appear before morphological changes can be visualised with white light. These targets are detected in vivo using exogenous probes, such as lectins, peptides, antibodies, affibodies and activatable enzymes that are labelled with fluorescence dyes to produce high contrast images. This emerging approach has potential to provide a 'red flag' to identify regions of premalignant mucosa, outline disease margins and guide therapy based on the underlying molecular mechanisms of cancer progression.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据