Search

Purpose: ABY-029, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted, synthetic Affibody peptide labeled with a near-infrared fluorophore, is under investigation for fluorescence-guided surgery of sarcomas. To date, studies using ABY-029 have occurred in tumors naïve to chemotherapy (CTx) and radiation therapy (RTx), although these neoadjuvant therapies are frequently used for sarcoma treatment in humans. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of CTx and RTx on tumor EGFR expression and ABY-029 fluorescence of human soft-tissue sarcoma xenografts in a murine model. Procedures: Immunodeficient mice (n = 98) were divided into five sarcoma xenograft groups and three treatment groups – CTx only, RTx only, and CTx followed by RTx, plus controls. Four hours post-injection of ABY-029, animals were sacrificed followed by immediate fluorescence imaging of ex vivo adipose, muscle, nerve, and tumor tissues. Histological hematoxylin and eosin staining confirmed tumor type, and immunohistochemistry staining determined EGFR, cluster of differentiation 31 (CD31), and smooth muscle actin (SMA) expression levels. Correlation analysis (Pearson's correlation coefficients, r) and linear regression (unstandardized coefficient estimates, B) were used to determine statistical relationships in molecular expression and tissue fluorescence between xenografts and treatment groups. Results: Neoadjuvant therapies had no broad impact on EGFR expression (|B|≤ 7.0, p ≥ 0.4) or on mean tissue fluorescence (any tissue type, (|B|≤ 2329.0, p ≥ 0.1). Mean tumor fluorescence was significantly related to EGFR expression (r = 0.26, p = 0.01), as expected. Conclusion: Results suggest that ABY-029 as an EGFR-targeted, fluorescent probe is not negatively impacted by neoadjuvant soft-tissue sarcoma therapies, although validation in humans is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Significance: Selecting a nerve-specific lead fluorescent agent for translation in fluorescence-guided surgery is time-consuming and expensive. Preclinical fluorescent agent studies rely primarily on animal models, which are a critical component of preclinical testing, but these models may not predict fluorophore performance in human tissues.The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare two preclinical models to test tissue-specific fluorophores based on discarded human tissues. The secondary aim was to use these models to determine the ability of a molecularly targeted fluorophore, LGW16-03, to label ex vivo human nerve tissues.Patients undergoing standard-of-care transtibial or transfemoral amputation were consented and randomized to topical or systemic administration of LGW16-03 following amputation. After probe administration, nerves and background tissues were surgically resected and imaged to determine nerve fluorescence signal-to-background tissue ratio (SBR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined statistical differences in metric means between administration cohorts and background tissue groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-derived statistics quantified the discriminatory performance of LGW16-03 fluorescence for labeling nerve tissues.Tissue samples from 18 patients were analyzed. Mean nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (p = 0.001), but mean nerve-to-adipose SNR was not statistically different from mean nerve-to-muscle SNR (p = 0.069). Neither SBR nor SNR means were statistically different between fluorophore administration cohorts (p ≥ 0.448). When administration cohorts were combined, nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (mean ± standard deviation; 4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 1.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001), but SNRs for nerve-to-adipose and nerve-to-muscle were not significantly different (5.1 ± 4.0 vs. 3.1 ± 3.4; p = 0.055). ROC curve-derived statistics to quantify LGW16-03 nerve labeling performance varied widely between patients, with sensitivities and specificities ranging from 0.2–99.9% and 0.4–100.0%.Systemic and topical administration of LGW16-03 yielded similar fluorescence labeling of nerve tissues. Both administration approaches provided nerve-specific contrast similar to that observed in preclinical animal models. Fluorescence contrast was generally higher for nerve-to-adipose versus nerve-to-muscle. Ex vivo human tissue models provide safe evaluation of fluorophores in the preclinical phase and can aid in the selection of lead agents prior to first-in-human trials.Aim: Selecting a nerve-specific lead fluorescent agent for translation in fluorescence-guided surgery is time-consuming and expensive. Preclinical fluorescent agent studies rely primarily on animal models, which are a critical component of preclinical testing, but these models may not predict fluorophore performance in human tissues.The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare two preclinical models to test tissue-specific fluorophores based on discarded human tissues. The secondary aim was to use these models to determine the ability of a molecularly targeted fluorophore, LGW16-03, to label ex vivo human nerve tissues.Patients undergoing standard-of-care transtibial or transfemoral amputation were consented and randomized to topical or systemic administration of LGW16-03 following amputation. After probe administration, nerves and background tissues were surgically resected and imaged to determine nerve fluorescence signal-to-background tissue ratio (SBR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined statistical differences in metric means between administration cohorts and background tissue groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-derived statistics quantified the discriminatory performance of LGW16-03 fluorescence for labeling nerve tissues.Tissue samples from 18 patients were analyzed. Mean nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (p = 0.001), but mean nerve-to-adipose SNR was not statistically different from mean nerve-to-muscle SNR (p = 0.069). Neither SBR nor SNR means were statistically different between fluorophore administration cohorts (p ≥ 0.448). When administration cohorts were combined, nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (mean ± standard deviation; 4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 1.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001), but SNRs for nerve-to-adipose and nerve-to-muscle were not significantly different (5.1 ± 4.0 vs. 3.1 ± 3.4; p = 0.055). ROC curve-derived statistics to quantify LGW16-03 nerve labeling performance varied widely between patients, with sensitivities and specificities ranging from 0.2–99.9% and 0.4–100.0%.Systemic and topical administration of LGW16-03 yielded similar fluorescence labeling of nerve tissues. Both administration approaches provided nerve-specific contrast similar to that observed in preclinical animal models. Fluorescence contrast was generally higher for nerve-to-adipose versus nerve-to-muscle. Ex vivo human tissue models provide safe evaluation of fluorophores in the preclinical phase and can aid in the selection of lead agents prior to first-in-human trials.Approach: Selecting a nerve-specific lead fluorescent agent for translation in fluorescence-guided surgery is time-consuming and expensive. Preclinical fluorescent agent studies rely primarily on animal models, which are a critical component of preclinical testing, but these models may not predict fluorophore performance in human tissues.The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare two preclinical models to test tissue-specific fluorophores based on discarded human tissues. The secondary aim was to use these models to determine the ability of a molecularly targeted fluorophore, LGW16-03, to label ex vivo human nerve tissues.Patients undergoing standard-of-care transtibial or transfemoral amputation were consented and randomized to topical or systemic administration of LGW16-03 following amputation. After probe administration, nerves and background tissues were surgically resected and imaged to determine nerve fluorescence signal-to-background tissue ratio (SBR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined statistical differences in metric means between administration cohorts and background tissue groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-derived statistics quantified the discriminatory performance of LGW16-03 fluorescence for labeling nerve tissues.Tissue samples from 18 patients were analyzed. Mean nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (p = 0.001), but mean nerve-to-adipose SNR was not statistically different from mean nerve-to-muscle SNR (p = 0.069). Neither SBR nor SNR means were statistically different between fluorophore administration cohorts (p ≥ 0.448). When administration cohorts were combined, nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (mean ± standard deviation; 4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 1.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001), but SNRs for nerve-to-adipose and nerve-to-muscle were not significantly different (5.1 ± 4.0 vs. 3.1 ± 3.4; p = 0.055). ROC curve-derived statistics to quantify LGW16-03 nerve labeling performance varied widely between patients, with sensitivities and specificities ranging from 0.2–99.9% and 0.4–100.0%.Systemic and topical administration of LGW16-03 yielded similar fluorescence labeling of nerve tissues. Both administration approaches provided nerve-specific contrast similar to that observed in preclinical animal models. Fluorescence contrast was generally higher for nerve-to-adipose versus nerve-to-muscle. Ex vivo human tissue models provide safe evaluation of fluorophores in the preclinical phase and can aid in the selection of lead agents prior to first-in-human trials.Results: Selecting a nerve-specific lead fluorescent agent for translation in fluorescence-guided surgery is time-consuming and expensive. Preclinical fluorescent agent studies rely primarily on animal models, which are a critical component of preclinical testing, but these models may not predict fluorophore performance in human tissues.The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare two preclinical models to test tissue-specific fluorophores based on discarded human tissues. The secondary aim was to use these models to determine the ability of a molecularly targeted fluorophore, LGW16-03, to label ex vivo human nerve tissues.Patients undergoing standard-of-care transtibial or transfemoral amputation were consented and randomized to topical or systemic administration of LGW16-03 following amputation. After probe administration, nerves and background tissues were surgically resected and imaged to determine nerve fluorescence signal-to-background tissue ratio (SBR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined statistical differences in metric means between administration cohorts and background tissue groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-derived statistics quantified the discriminatory performance of LGW16-03 fluorescence for labeling nerve tissues.Tissue samples from 18 patients were analyzed. Mean nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (p = 0.001), but mean nerve-to-adipose SNR was not statistically different from mean nerve-to-muscle SNR (p = 0.069). Neither SBR nor SNR means were statistically different between fluorophore administration cohorts (p ≥ 0.448). When administration cohorts were combined, nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (mean ± standard deviation; 4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 1.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001), but SNRs for nerve-to-adipose and nerve-to-muscle were not significantly different (5.1 ± 4.0 vs. 3.1 ± 3.4; p = 0.055). ROC curve-derived statistics to quantify LGW16-03 nerve labeling performance varied widely between patients, with sensitivities and specificities ranging from 0.2–99.9% and 0.4–100.0%.Systemic and topical administration of LGW16-03 yielded similar fluorescence labeling of nerve tissues. Both administration approaches provided nerve-specific contrast similar to that observed in preclinical animal models. Fluorescence contrast was generally higher for nerve-to-adipose versus nerve-to-muscle. Ex vivo human tissue models provide safe evaluation of fluorophores in the preclinical phase and can aid in the selection of lead agents prior to first-in-human trials.Conclusion: Selecting a nerve-specific lead fluorescent agent for translation in fluorescence-guided surgery is time-consuming and expensive. Preclinical fluorescent agent studies rely primarily on animal models, which are a critical component of preclinical testing, but these models may not predict fluorophore performance in human tissues.The primary aim of this study was to evaluate and compare two preclinical models to test tissue-specific fluorophores based on discarded human tissues. The secondary aim was to use these models to determine the ability of a molecularly targeted fluorophore, LGW16-03, to label ex vivo human nerve tissues.Patients undergoing standard-of-care transtibial or transfemoral amputation were consented and randomized to topical or systemic administration of LGW16-03 following amputation. After probe administration, nerves and background tissues were surgically resected and imaged to determine nerve fluorescence signal-to-background tissue ratio (SBR) and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) metrics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) determined statistical differences in metric means between administration cohorts and background tissue groups. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-derived statistics quantified the discriminatory performance of LGW16-03 fluorescence for labeling nerve tissues.Tissue samples from 18 patients were analyzed. Mean nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (p = 0.001), but mean nerve-to-adipose SNR was not statistically different from mean nerve-to-muscle SNR (p = 0.069). Neither SBR nor SNR means were statistically different between fluorophore administration cohorts (p ≥ 0.448). When administration cohorts were combined, nerve-to-adipose SBR was greater than nerve-to-muscle SBR (mean ± standard deviation; 4.2 ± 2.9 vs. 1.8 ± 1.9; p < 0.001), but SNRs for nerve-to-adipose and nerve-to-muscle were not significantly different (5.1 ± 4.0 vs. 3.1 ± 3.4; p = 0.055). ROC curve-derived statistics to quantify LGW16-03 nerve labeling performance varied widely between patients, with sensitivities and specificities ranging from 0.2–99.9% and 0.4–100.0%.Systemic and topical administration of LGW16-03 yielded similar fluorescence labeling of nerve tissues. Both administration approaches provided nerve-specific contrast similar to that observed in preclinical animal models. Fluorescence contrast was generally higher for nerve-to-adipose versus nerve-to-muscle. Ex vivo human tissue models provide safe evaluation of fluorophores in the preclinical phase and can aid in the selection of lead agents prior to first-in-human trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Interventional fluorescence imaging is increasingly being utilized to quantify cancer biomarkers in both clinical and preclinical models, yet absolute quantification is complicated by many factors. The use of optical phantoms has been suggested by multiple professional organizations for quantitative performance assessment of fluorescence guidance imaging systems. This concept can be further extended to provide standardized tools to compare and assess image analysis metrics. Procedures: 3D-printed fluorescence phantoms based on solid tumor models were developed with representative bio-mimicking optical properties. Phantoms were produced with discrete tumors embedded with an NIR fluorophore of fixed concentration and either zero or 3% non-specific fluorophore in the surrounding material. These phantoms were first imaged by two fluorescence imaging systems using two methods of image segmentation, and four assessment metrics were calculated to demonstrate variability in the quantitative assessment of system performance. The same analysis techniques were then applied to one tumor model with decreasing tumor fluorophore concentrations. Results: These anatomical phantom models demonstrate the ability to use 3D printing to manufacture anthropomorphic shapes with a wide range of reduced scattering (μs′: 0.24–1.06 mm−1) and absorption (μa: 0.005–0.14 mm−1) properties. The phantom imaging and analysis highlight variability in the measured sensitivity metrics associated with tumor visualization. Conclusions: 3D printing techniques provide a platform for demonstrating complex biological models that introduce real-world complexities for quantifying fluorescence image data. Controlled iterative development of these phantom designs can be used as a tool to advance the field and provide context for consensus-building beyond performance assessment of fluorescence imaging platforms, and extend support for standardizing how quantitative metrics are extracted from imaging data and reported in literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) is an evolving field that seeks to identify important anatomic structures or physiologic phenomena with helpful relevance to the execution of surgical procedures. Fluorescence labeling occurs generally via the administration of fluorescent reporters that may be molecularly targeted, enzyme-activated, or untargeted, vascular probes. Fluorescence guidance has substantially changed care strategies in numerous surgical fields; however, investigation and adoption in orthopaedic surgery have lagged. FGS shows the potential for improving patient care in orthopaedics via several applications including disease diagnosis, perfusion-based tissue healing capacity assessment, infection/tumor eradication, and anatomic structure identification. This review highlights current and future applications of fluorescence guidance in orthopaedics and identifies key challenges to translation and potential solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]