Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy
Volume 4, Issue 3 , Pages 170-178, September 2007

In vivo quantification of fluorescent molecular markers in real-time: A review to evaluate the performance of five existing methods

  • A. Bogaards, PhD

      Affiliations

    • University Health Network, Division of Biophysics and BioImaging, Toronto, M5G2MG Ontario, Canada
    • Erasmus University Medical Center, Center for Optical Diagnostics and Therapy, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam POB 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: University Health Network/Ontario Cancer Institute, 610 University Avenue, Rm 7-327, Toronto, Ontario M5G 2M9, Canada. Tel.: +1 416 946 4501x5747; fax: +1 416 946 6529.
  • ,
  • H.J.C.M. Sterenborg

      Affiliations

    • Erasmus University Medical Center, Center for Optical Diagnostics and Therapy, Department of Radiotherapy, Rotterdam POB 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • ,
  • B.C. Wilson

      Affiliations

    • University Health Network, Division of Biophysics and BioImaging, Toronto, M5G2MG Ontario, Canada

published online 25 April 2007.

Summary 

With the advent of molecular-targeted fluorescent markers, there is a renewed interest in fluorescence quantification methods that are based on continuous wave excitation and multi-spectral image acquisition. However, little is known about their in vivo quantification performance. We reviewed the performance of five selected methods by analytically describing these and varying input parameters of irradiance, excitation geometry, collection efficiency, autofluorescence, melanin content, blood volume, blood oxygenation and tissue scattering using optical properties representing those for human skin. We identified one method that corrects for variations in all parameters. This requires image acquisition before and after marker administration, under identical geometry. Hence, it is suited for applications where the site of interest can be relocated (e.g. anaesthetized animals and dermatology). For applications where relocation is not possible, we identified a second method where the uncertainty in the fluorescence signal was ±20%. Hence, use of these methods can substantially aid in vivo fluorescence quantification compared to use of the raw fluorescence signal, as this changed by more than 3 orders of magnitude. Since these methods can be computed in real-time, they are of particular interest for applications where direct feedback is critical, as diagnostic screening or image-guided surgery.

Keywords: In vivo optical imaging, Fluorescence, Quantification, Real-time, Image-guided surgery

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S1572-1000(07)00031-2

doi:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2007.02.003

Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy
Volume 4, Issue 3 , Pages 170-178, September 2007