Portable, Fiber-Based, Diffuse Reflection Spectroscopy (DRS) Systems for Estimating Tissue Optical Properties.

Steady-state diffuse reflection spectroscopy is a well-studied optical technique that can provide a noninvasive and quantitative method for characterizing the absorption and scattering properties of biological tissues. Here, we compare three fiber-based diffuse reflection spectroscopy systems that were assembled to create a light-weight, portable, and robust optical spectrometer that could be easily translated for repeated and reliable use in mobile settings. The three systems were built using a broadband light source and a compact, commercially available spectrograph. We tested two different light sources and two spectrographs (manufactured by two different vendors). The assembled systems were characterized by their signal-to-noise ratios, the source-intensity drifts, and detector linearity. We quantified the performance of these instruments in extracting optical properties from diffuse reflectance spectra in tissue-mimicking liquid phantoms with well-controlled optical absorption and scattering coefficients. We show that all assembled systems were able to extract the optical absorption and scattering properties with errors less than 10%, while providing greater than ten-fold decrease in footprint and cost (relative to a previously well-characterized and widely used commercial system). Finally, we demonstrate the use of these small systems to measure optical biomarkers in vivo in a small-animal model cancer therapy study. We show that optical measurements from the simple portable system provide estimates of tumor oxygen saturation similar to those detected using the commercial system in murine tumor models of head and neck cancer.

When static meets dynamic: Comparing cone-beam computed tomography and acoustic reflection for upper airway analysis

INTRODUCTION: Upper airway measurement can be important for the diagnosis of breathing disorders. Acoustic reflection (AR) is an accepted tool for studying the airway. Our objective was to investigate the differences between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and AR in calculating airway volumes and areas. METHODS: Subjects with prescribed CBCT images as part of their records were also asked to have AR performed. A total of 59 subjects (mean age, 15 ± 3.8 years) had their upper airway (5 areas) measured from CBCT images, acoustic rhinometry, and acoustic pharyngometry. Volumes and minimal cross-sectional areas were extracted and compared with software. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation on 20 randomly selected subjects, remeasured 2 weeks apart, showed high reliability (r >0.77). Means of total nasal volume were significantly different between the 2 methods (P = 0.035), but anterior nasal volume and minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.532 and P = 0.066, respectively). Pharyngeal volume showed significant differences (P = 0.01) with high correlation (r = 0.755), whereas pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area showed no differences (P = 0.109). The pharyngeal volume difference may not be considered clinically significant, since it is 758 mm3 for measurements showing means of 11,000 ± 4000 mm3. CONCLUSIONS: CBCT is an accurate method for measuring anterior nasal volume, nasal minimal cross-sectional area, pharyngeal volume, and pharyngeal minimal cross-sectional area.