RESUMO
Objectives: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is an intraoperative real-time cellular resolution imaging technology that images brain tumor histoarchitecture. Previously, we demonstrated that CLE images may be interpreted by neuropathologists to determine the presence of tumor infiltration at glioma margins. In this study, we assessed neurosurgeons' ability to interpret CLE images from glioma margins and compared their assessments to those of neuropathologists. Methods: In vivo CLE images acquired at the glioma margins that were previously reviewed by CLE-experienced neuropathologists were interpreted by four CLE-experienced neurosurgeons. A numerical scoring system from 0 to 5 and a dichotomous scoring system based on pathological features were used. Scores from assessments of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained sections and CLE images by neuropathologists from a previous study were used for comparison. Neurosurgeons' scores were compared to the H&E findings. The inter-rater agreement and diagnostic performance based on neurosurgeons' scores were calculated. The concordance between dichotomous and numerical scores was determined. Results: In all, 4275 images from 56 glioma margin regions of interest (ROIs) were included in the analysis. With the numerical scoring system, the inter-rater agreement for neurosurgeons interpreting CLE images was moderate for all ROIs (mean agreement, 61%), which was significantly better than the inter-rater agreement for the neuropathologists (mean agreement, 48%) (p < 0.01). The inter-rater agreement for neurosurgeons using the dichotomous scoring system was 83%. The concordance between the numerical and dichotomous scoring systems was 93%. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 78%, 32%, 62%, and 50%, respectively, using the numerical scoring system and 80%, 27%, 61%, and 48%, respectively, using the dichotomous scoring system. No statistically significant differences in diagnostic performance were found between the neurosurgeons and neuropathologists. Conclusion: Neurosurgeons' performance in interpreting CLE images was comparable to that of neuropathologists. These results suggest that CLE could be used as an intraoperative guidance tool with neurosurgeons interpreting the images with or without assistance of the neuropathologists. The dichotomous scoring system is robust yet simple and may streamline rapid, simultaneous interpretation of CLE images during imaging.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a US Food and Drug Administration-cleared intraoperative real-time fluorescence-based cellular resolution imaging technology that has been shown to image brain tumor histoarchitecture rapidly in vivo during neuro-oncological surgical procedures. An important goal for successful intraoperative implementation is in vivo use at the margins of infiltrating gliomas. However, CLE use at glioma margins has not been well studied. METHODS: Matching in vivo CLE images and tissue biopsies acquired at glioma margin regions of interest (ROIs) were collected from 2 institutions. All images were reviewed by 4 neuropathologists experienced in CLE. A scoring system based on the pathological features was implemented to score CLE and H&E images from each ROI on a scale from 0 to 5. Based on the H&E scores, all ROIs were divided into a low tumor probability (LTP) group (scores 0-2) and a high tumor probability (HTP) group (scores 3-5). The concordance between CLE and H&E scores regarding tumor probability was determined. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and diagnostic performance were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-six glioma margin ROIs were included for analysis. Interrater reliability of the scoring system was excellent when used for H&E images (ICC [95% CI] 0.91 [0.86-0.94]) and moderate when used for CLE images (ICC [95% CI] 0.69 [0.40-0.83]). The ICCs (95% CIs) of the LTP group (0.68 [0.40-0.83]) and HTP group (0.68 [0.39-0.83]) did not differ significantly. The concordance between CLE and H&E scores was 61.6%. The sensitivity and specificity values of the scoring system were 79% and 37%. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value were 65% and 53%, respectively. Concordance, sensitivity, and PPV were greater in the HTP group than in the LTP group. Specificity was higher in the newly diagnosed group than in the recurrent group. CONCLUSIONS: CLE may detect tumor infiltration at glioma margins. However, it is not currently dependable, especially in scenarios where low probability of tumor infiltration is expected. The proposed scoring system has excellent intrinsic interrater reliability, but its interrater reliability is only moderate when used with CLE images. These results suggest that this technology requires further exploration as a method for consistent actionable intraoperative guidance with high dependability across the range of tumor margin scenarios. Specific-binding and/or tumor-specific fluorophores, a CLE image atlas, and a consensus guideline for image interpretation may help with the translational utility of CLE.