Comparing 3D imaging devices for the measurement of cutaneous neurofibromas in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY Skin Research and Technology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1111/srt.70020
Jonathan C L Lau, Jane Fleming, Martin Good, Adrian Lim, Rebecca B Saunderson, Tai A Phan, Timothy Schlub, Sue-Faye Siow, Nanette Lacson, Carlos Romo, Jaishri Blakely, Christina Bergqvist, Yemima D Berman
{"title":"Comparing 3D imaging devices for the measurement of cutaneous neurofibromas in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.","authors":"Jonathan C L Lau, Jane Fleming, Martin Good, Adrian Lim, Rebecca B Saunderson, Tai A Phan, Timothy Schlub, Sue-Faye Siow, Nanette Lacson, Carlos Romo, Jaishri Blakely, Christina Bergqvist, Yemima D Berman","doi":"10.1111/srt.70020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNFs) are a major cause of disfigurement in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1). However, clinical trials investigating cNF treatments lack standardised outcome measures to objectively evaluate changes in cNF size and appearance. 3D imaging has been proposed as an objective standardised outcome measure however various systems exist with different features that affect useability in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, precision, feasibility, reliability and accessibility of three imaging systems.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We compared the Vectra-H1, LifeViz-Micro and Cherry-Imaging systems. A total of 58 cNFs from 13 participants with NF1 were selected for imaging and analysis. The primary endpoint was accuracy as measured by comparison of measurements between imaging systems. Secondary endpoints included reliability between two operators, precision as measured with the average coefficient of variation, feasibility as determined by time to capture and analyse an image and accessibility as determined by cost.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in accuracy between the three devices for length or surface area measurements (p > 0.05), and reliability and precision were similar. Volume measurements demonstrated the most variability compared to other measurements; LifeViz-Micro demonstrated the least measurement variability for surface area and image capture and analysis were fastest with LifeViz-Micro. LifeViz-Micro was better for imaging smaller number of cNFs (1-3), Vectra-H1 better for larger areas and Cherry for uneven surfaces.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All systems demonstrated excellent reliability but possess distinct advantages and limitations. Surface area is the most consistent and reliable parameter for measuring cNF size in clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":21746,"journal":{"name":"Skin Research and Technology","volume":"30 9","pages":"e70020"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11369787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skin Research and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.70020","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cutaneous neurofibromas (cNFs) are a major cause of disfigurement in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1). However, clinical trials investigating cNF treatments lack standardised outcome measures to objectively evaluate changes in cNF size and appearance. 3D imaging has been proposed as an objective standardised outcome measure however various systems exist with different features that affect useability in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, precision, feasibility, reliability and accessibility of three imaging systems.

Materials and methods: We compared the Vectra-H1, LifeViz-Micro and Cherry-Imaging systems. A total of 58 cNFs from 13 participants with NF1 were selected for imaging and analysis. The primary endpoint was accuracy as measured by comparison of measurements between imaging systems. Secondary endpoints included reliability between two operators, precision as measured with the average coefficient of variation, feasibility as determined by time to capture and analyse an image and accessibility as determined by cost.

Results: There was no significant difference in accuracy between the three devices for length or surface area measurements (p > 0.05), and reliability and precision were similar. Volume measurements demonstrated the most variability compared to other measurements; LifeViz-Micro demonstrated the least measurement variability for surface area and image capture and analysis were fastest with LifeViz-Micro. LifeViz-Micro was better for imaging smaller number of cNFs (1-3), Vectra-H1 better for larger areas and Cherry for uneven surfaces.

Conclusions: All systems demonstrated excellent reliability but possess distinct advantages and limitations. Surface area is the most consistent and reliable parameter for measuring cNF size in clinical trials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较用于测量 1 型神经纤维瘤病患者皮肤神经纤维瘤的 3D 成像设备。
背景:皮肤神经纤维瘤(cNF)是导致1型神经纤维瘤病(NF1)患者毁容的主要原因。然而,研究 cNF 治疗方法的临床试验缺乏标准化的结果测量,无法客观评估 cNF 的大小和外观变化。三维成像被认为是一种客观的标准化结果测量方法,但现有的各种系统功能各异,影响了临床应用。本研究旨在比较三种成像系统的准确性、精确性、可行性、可靠性和易用性:我们比较了 Vectra-H1、LifeViz-Micro 和 Cherry-Imaging 系统。我们从 13 名 NF1 患者中挑选了 58 个 cNFs 进行成像和分析。主要终点是通过比较不同成像系统的测量结果来衡量准确性。次要终点包括两名操作员之间的可靠性、以平均变异系数衡量的精确度、以捕获和分析图像的时间决定的可行性以及以成本决定的可及性:三种设备在长度或表面积测量的准确性上没有明显差异(P > 0.05),可靠性和精确性也相似。与其他测量相比,体积测量的变异性最大;LifeViz-Micro 的表面积测量变异性最小,LifeViz-Micro 的图像采集和分析速度最快。LifeViz-Micro 更适合对较小数量的 cNF(1-3)进行成像,Vectra-H1 更适合对较大面积的 cNF 进行成像,Cherry 更适合对凹凸不平的表面进行成像:结论:所有系统都具有出色的可靠性,但也有各自的优势和局限性。在临床试验中,表面积是测量 cNF 大小最一致、最可靠的参数。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Skin Research and Technology
Skin Research and Technology 医学-皮肤病学
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
95
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Skin Research and Technology is a clinically-oriented journal on biophysical methods and imaging techniques and how they are used in dermatology, cosmetology and plastic surgery for noninvasive quantification of skin structure and functions. Papers are invited on the development and validation of methods and their application in the characterization of diseased, abnormal and normal skin. Topics include blood flow, colorimetry, thermography, evaporimetry, epidermal humidity, desquamation, profilometry, skin mechanics, epiluminiscence microscopy, high-frequency ultrasonography, confocal microscopy, digital imaging, image analysis and computerized evaluation and magnetic resonance. Noninvasive biochemical methods (such as lipids, keratin and tissue water) and the instrumental evaluation of cytological and histological samples are also covered. The journal has a wide scope and aims to link scientists, clinical researchers and technicians through original articles, communications, editorials and commentaries, letters, reviews, announcements and news. Contributions should be clear, experimentally sound and novel.
期刊最新文献
Using Wavelet Analysis of Blood Flow Oscillations to Investigate Differences in Skin Blood Flow Regulations Between the Upper and Lower Limbs. Cold Plasma Ameliorates Imiquimod-Induced Psoriasis-Like Skin Inflammation in Mice. Commentary on "Analysis of Factors Influencing the Recurrence of Diabetic Foot Ulcers". Development and Validation of a Total Body Photo-Numeric Freckling Density Scale. Involvement of Sex Hormones and Their Receptors in the Pathogenesis of Classic Kaposi's Sarcoma in Xinjiang.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1