Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue

Brian W. Pogue, Xiaodong Zhou, Summer Gibbs, Scott Davis, Dax Kepshire, Keith D. Paulsen, Tayyaba Hasan

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper summarizes ten approaches to quantifying fluorescence in tissues, and contrasts their strengths and weaknesses, relative to what their common applications are, and should be. The major issues involved in this analysis are to compare the accuracy of the method and the ability to quantify the active (i.e. non-aggregated) fraction of fluorophore in the tissue. In addition, issues of the depth of penetration and the availability of the method come into play when clinical applications are required. In general, tissue extraction and liquification methods are the 'gold standard' in this field, yet these are plagued by large variance in the values, raising questions about their ability to report on the true active fraction of drug in the tissue. Confocal and fiber optic microsampling methods allow direct quantification of the active fluorescence in vivo and are able to quantify the heterogeneity in the tissue. Yet both of these methods sample the most superficial layers of a tissue, unless invasive injection of the probe is done. Macroscopic sampling of the tissue is therefore the preferred choice for clinical use, yet there is truly no optimum method which can sample the drug concentration to arbitrary accuracy. Empirical bulk tissue sampling methods are the most commonly used, yet without model-based interpretation of the values it is generally not possible to be quantitative. Even relative uptake values can be distorted by the shape of the tissue, and so raster scanning or model-based assessment of the fluorescent yield is preferable, if available. Extending this concept further, tomographic methods can be implemented to quantify fluorescence, and can even be coupled into existing clinical imaging systems, but development and optimization of these methods will be required in the coming years. These are outlined, and case examples illustrated in this paper.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationProgress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE
Volume6139
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006
Externally publishedYes
EventOptical Methods for Tumor Treatment and Detection: Mechanisms and Techniques in Photodynamic Therapy XV - San Jose, CA, United States
Duration: Jan 21 2006Jan 22 2006

Other

OtherOptical Methods for Tumor Treatment and Detection: Mechanisms and Techniques in Photodynamic Therapy XV
CountryUnited States
CitySan Jose, CA
Period1/21/061/22/06

Fingerprint

Fluorescence
Tissue
Sampling
Fluorophores
Medical imaging
Imaging systems
Fiber optics
Availability
Scanning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Engineering(all)

Cite this

Pogue, B. W., Zhou, X., Gibbs, S., Davis, S., Kepshire, D., Paulsen, K. D., & Hasan, T. (2006). Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE (Vol. 6139). [61390N] https://doi.org/10.1117/12.647572

Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue. / Pogue, Brian W.; Zhou, Xiaodong; Gibbs, Summer; Davis, Scott; Kepshire, Dax; Paulsen, Keith D.; Hasan, Tayyaba.

Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6139 2006. 61390N.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Pogue, BW, Zhou, X, Gibbs, S, Davis, S, Kepshire, D, Paulsen, KD & Hasan, T 2006, Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue. in Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. vol. 6139, 61390N, Optical Methods for Tumor Treatment and Detection: Mechanisms and Techniques in Photodynamic Therapy XV, San Jose, CA, United States, 1/21/06. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.647572
Pogue BW, Zhou X, Gibbs S, Davis S, Kepshire D, Paulsen KD et al. Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue. In Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6139. 2006. 61390N https://doi.org/10.1117/12.647572
Pogue, Brian W. ; Zhou, Xiaodong ; Gibbs, Summer ; Davis, Scott ; Kepshire, Dax ; Paulsen, Keith D. ; Hasan, Tayyaba. / Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue. Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE. Vol. 6139 2006.
@inproceedings{a0a7fdb81a514c76a3877cd51fcefd22,
title = "Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue",
abstract = "This paper summarizes ten approaches to quantifying fluorescence in tissues, and contrasts their strengths and weaknesses, relative to what their common applications are, and should be. The major issues involved in this analysis are to compare the accuracy of the method and the ability to quantify the active (i.e. non-aggregated) fraction of fluorophore in the tissue. In addition, issues of the depth of penetration and the availability of the method come into play when clinical applications are required. In general, tissue extraction and liquification methods are the 'gold standard' in this field, yet these are plagued by large variance in the values, raising questions about their ability to report on the true active fraction of drug in the tissue. Confocal and fiber optic microsampling methods allow direct quantification of the active fluorescence in vivo and are able to quantify the heterogeneity in the tissue. Yet both of these methods sample the most superficial layers of a tissue, unless invasive injection of the probe is done. Macroscopic sampling of the tissue is therefore the preferred choice for clinical use, yet there is truly no optimum method which can sample the drug concentration to arbitrary accuracy. Empirical bulk tissue sampling methods are the most commonly used, yet without model-based interpretation of the values it is generally not possible to be quantitative. Even relative uptake values can be distorted by the shape of the tissue, and so raster scanning or model-based assessment of the fluorescent yield is preferable, if available. Extending this concept further, tomographic methods can be implemented to quantify fluorescence, and can even be coupled into existing clinical imaging systems, but development and optimization of these methods will be required in the coming years. These are outlined, and case examples illustrated in this paper.",
author = "Pogue, {Brian W.} and Xiaodong Zhou and Summer Gibbs and Scott Davis and Dax Kepshire and Paulsen, {Keith D.} and Tayyaba Hasan",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1117/12.647572",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "0819461822",
volume = "6139",
booktitle = "Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Comparison of techniques for quantification of fluorescence from tissue

AU - Pogue, Brian W.

AU - Zhou, Xiaodong

AU - Gibbs, Summer

AU - Davis, Scott

AU - Kepshire, Dax

AU - Paulsen, Keith D.

AU - Hasan, Tayyaba

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - This paper summarizes ten approaches to quantifying fluorescence in tissues, and contrasts their strengths and weaknesses, relative to what their common applications are, and should be. The major issues involved in this analysis are to compare the accuracy of the method and the ability to quantify the active (i.e. non-aggregated) fraction of fluorophore in the tissue. In addition, issues of the depth of penetration and the availability of the method come into play when clinical applications are required. In general, tissue extraction and liquification methods are the 'gold standard' in this field, yet these are plagued by large variance in the values, raising questions about their ability to report on the true active fraction of drug in the tissue. Confocal and fiber optic microsampling methods allow direct quantification of the active fluorescence in vivo and are able to quantify the heterogeneity in the tissue. Yet both of these methods sample the most superficial layers of a tissue, unless invasive injection of the probe is done. Macroscopic sampling of the tissue is therefore the preferred choice for clinical use, yet there is truly no optimum method which can sample the drug concentration to arbitrary accuracy. Empirical bulk tissue sampling methods are the most commonly used, yet without model-based interpretation of the values it is generally not possible to be quantitative. Even relative uptake values can be distorted by the shape of the tissue, and so raster scanning or model-based assessment of the fluorescent yield is preferable, if available. Extending this concept further, tomographic methods can be implemented to quantify fluorescence, and can even be coupled into existing clinical imaging systems, but development and optimization of these methods will be required in the coming years. These are outlined, and case examples illustrated in this paper.

AB - This paper summarizes ten approaches to quantifying fluorescence in tissues, and contrasts their strengths and weaknesses, relative to what their common applications are, and should be. The major issues involved in this analysis are to compare the accuracy of the method and the ability to quantify the active (i.e. non-aggregated) fraction of fluorophore in the tissue. In addition, issues of the depth of penetration and the availability of the method come into play when clinical applications are required. In general, tissue extraction and liquification methods are the 'gold standard' in this field, yet these are plagued by large variance in the values, raising questions about their ability to report on the true active fraction of drug in the tissue. Confocal and fiber optic microsampling methods allow direct quantification of the active fluorescence in vivo and are able to quantify the heterogeneity in the tissue. Yet both of these methods sample the most superficial layers of a tissue, unless invasive injection of the probe is done. Macroscopic sampling of the tissue is therefore the preferred choice for clinical use, yet there is truly no optimum method which can sample the drug concentration to arbitrary accuracy. Empirical bulk tissue sampling methods are the most commonly used, yet without model-based interpretation of the values it is generally not possible to be quantitative. Even relative uptake values can be distorted by the shape of the tissue, and so raster scanning or model-based assessment of the fluorescent yield is preferable, if available. Extending this concept further, tomographic methods can be implemented to quantify fluorescence, and can even be coupled into existing clinical imaging systems, but development and optimization of these methods will be required in the coming years. These are outlined, and case examples illustrated in this paper.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745333929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745333929&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1117/12.647572

DO - 10.1117/12.647572

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:33745333929

SN - 0819461822

SN - 9780819461827

VL - 6139

BT - Progress in Biomedical Optics and Imaging - Proceedings of SPIE

ER -