Microbiopsy engineered for minimally invasive and suture-free sub-millimetre skin sampling

Lynlee L Lin, Tarl W Prow, Anthony P Raphael, Robert L Harrold Iii, Clare A Primiero, Alexander B Ansaldo, H Peter Soyer, Lynlee L Lin, Tarl W Prow, Anthony P Raphael, Robert L Harrold Iii, Clare A Primiero, Alexander B Ansaldo, H Peter Soyer

Abstract

We describe the development of a sub-millimetre skin punch biopsy device for minimally invasive and suture-free skin sampling for molecular diagnosis and research. Conventional skin punch biopsies range from 2-4 mm in diameter. Local anaesthesia is required and sutures are usually used to close the wound. Our microbiopsy is 0.50 mm wide and 0.20 mm thick. The microbiopsy device is fabricated from three stacked medical grade stainless steel plates tapered to a point and contains a chamber within the centre plate to collect the skin sample. We observed that the application of this device resulted in a 0.21 ± 0.04 mm wide puncture site in volunteer skin using reflectance confocal microscopy. Histological sections from microbiopsied skin revealed 0.22 ± 0.12 mm wide and 0.26 ± 0.09 mm deep puncture sites. Longitudinal observation in microbiopsied volunteers showed that the wound closed within 1 day and was not visible after 7 days. Reflectance confocal microscope images from these same sites showed the formation of a tiny crust that resolved by 3 weeks and was completely undetectable by the naked eye. The design parameters of the device were optimised for molecular analysis using sampled DNA mass as the primary end point in volunteer studies. Finally, total RNA was characterized. The optimised device extracted 5.9 ± 3.4 ng DNA and 9.0 ± 10.1 ng RNA. We foresee that minimally invasive molecular sampling will play an increasingly significant role in diagnostic dermatology and skin research.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Figures

Figure 1.. Size comparison of needle, biopsy…
Figure 1.. Size comparison of needle, biopsy devices and biopsy comparisons.
A conventional biopsy punch is shown on the left, an 18 gauge syringe needle in the centre and the inner chamber of our microbiopsy device on the right Panel (a) our microbiopsy device chamber is 0.15 mm in width with an outer width of 0.25 mm. The top row of Panel (b) contains a conventional 3 mm biopsy site and tissue, whereas the bottom panels show microbiopsied skin and tissue.
Figure 2.. Microbiopsy channel width and velocity…
Figure 2.. Microbiopsy channel width and velocity optimisation.
Channel width and velocity were varied to optimise the microbiopsy device configuration. Total DNA was used as a surrogate for sample size. Panel (a) shows the DNA extracted from device with varying channel width and that the maximum amount of DNA was collected with 0.15 mm channel width. Panel (b) displays high resolution scanning electron microscopic images showing different channel widths of the microbiopsy device. Panel (c) shows the level of pain volunteers reported when different channel width microbiopsies were used. Panel (d) shows the varying velocity applied and that the maximum amount of DNA was collected when the device was applied at 16.6 m/s. Panel (e) shows the level of pain volunteers reported when application velocity was varied.
Figure 3.. Microbiopsy roughness amplitude optimisation.
Figure 3.. Microbiopsy roughness amplitude optimisation.
Panel (a) shows that microbiopsy devices with higher roughness amplitude channels are capable of collecting more DNA. Panel (b) contains high resolution scanning electron microscopic images showing different channel widths and roughness of the microbiopsy device.
Figure 4.. Site of microbiopsy and microbiopsy…
Figure 4.. Site of microbiopsy and microbiopsy content.
Panels (a) and (b) are reflectance confocal microscopy mosaics of a microbiopsy site, see the hair follicles featured in the centre and on the right hand side of the images for size comparison (bar indicates 0.5 mm ina andb). Panel (c) shows a 63x magnification, 3D rendering of the microbiopsy tissue with a nuclear counter stain (orange) derived from a confocal microscopy z-stack of the sample within the microbiopsy device. The stratum corneum (SC), viable epidermis (VE), dermal-epidermal junction (DEJ) and superficial dermis (DER) are labeled. This microbiopsy contained an estimated 1634 nuclei. Haematoxylin and eosin stained section of human skin after microbiopsy application shows a 0.10 mm wide and 0.25 mm deep puncture Panel (d). * indicates the site of microbiopsy application.
Figure 5.. Molecular characterization of conventional shave…
Figure 5.. Molecular characterization of conventional shave biopsies and microbiopsies.
The left panel shows the Bioanalyzer readout from amplified DNA from a conventional actinic keratosis (AK) shave biopsy next to the microbiopsy DNA sample obtained from the same AK lesion. The middle panel shows the Bioanalyzer readout from RNA isolated from a conventional AK shave biopsy and a microbiopsy that was obtained from the same AK lesion. The right panel compares the RNA quality of a shave biopsy and normal skin microbiopsy that were subjected to total transcriptome amplification to generate cDNA. The cDNA was then used as a template for a PCR reaction containing actin specific primers with an expected product at 800 bp.
Figure 6.. Wound healing kinetics of microbiopsy…
Figure 6.. Wound healing kinetics of microbiopsy site.
The left column shows dermoscopic images of the microbiopsy site over time. The middle and right column are mosaics and at 30x magnification reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) images, respectively, of the microbiopsy site.

References

    1. Sina B, Kao GF, Deng AC, et al. : Skin biopsy for inflammatory and common neoplastic skin diseases: optimum time, best location and preferred techniques. A critical review. J Cutan Pathol. 2009;36(5):505–510 10.1111/j.1600-0560.2008.01175.x
    1. Pickett H: Shave and punch biopsy for skin lesions. Am Fam Physician. 2011;84(9):995–1002
    1. Ugurel S, Utikal J, Becker JC: Tumor biomarkers in melanoma. Cancer Control. 2009;16(3):219–224
    1. Shivers S, Jakub J, Pendas S, et al. : Molecular staging for patients with malignant melanoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2007;7(11):1665–1674 10.1586/14737140.7.11.1665
    1. Greinert R: Skin cancer: new markers for better prevention. Pathobiology. 2009;76(2):64–81 10.1159/000201675
    1. Krulevitch PA, Lee AP, Northrup MA, et al. : Microbiopsy/Precision cutting devices. In. Edited by Patent US. United States: The Regents of the University of California;1999.
    1. Byun S, Lim JM, Paik SJ, et al. : Barbed micro-spikes for micro-scale biopsy. J Micromech Microeng. 2005;15(6):1279–1284 10.1088/0960-1317/15/6/020
    1. Cho D, Park SK, Lee AR, et al. : Catheter capable of being equipped with micro biospy tool. In. Edited by Patent US;2011.
    1. Cosnier ML, Martin F, Bouamrani A, et al. : A minimally invasive microdevice for molecular sampling and analysis. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2009;56(12):2898–2904 10.1109/TBME.2009.2026582
    1. Pflueger DR: Micro-invasive breast biopsy device. In. Edited by Patent US;2004.
    1. Banan P, Lin LL, Lambie D, et al. : Effects of Ex Vivo Skin Microbiopsy on histopathological diagnosis in melanocytic skin lesions. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(9):1107–9 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.5020
    1. Fuchs A, Marmur E: The kinetics of skin cancer: progression of actinic keratosis to squamous cell carcinoma. Dermatol Surg. 2007;33(9):1099–1101 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2007.33224.x
    1. Chapman PB, Hauschild A, Robert C, et al. : Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(26):2507–2516 10.1056/NEJMoa1103782
    1. Flaherty KT, Infante JR, Daud A, et al. : Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition in melanoma with BRAF V600 mutations. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(18):1694–1703 10.1056/NEJMoa1210093
    1. Flaherty KT, Robert C, Hersey P, et al. : Improved survival with MEK inhibition in BRAF-mutated melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(2):107–114 10.1056/NEJMoa1203421
    1. Romano E, Schwartz GK, Chapman PB, et al. : Treatment implications of the emerging molecular classification system for melanoma. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(9):913–922 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70274-6
    1. Jin SA, Chun SM, Choi YD, et al. : BRAF mutations and KIT aberrations and their clinicopathological correlation in 202 Korean melanomas. J Invest Dermatol. 2013;133(2):579–582 10.1038/jid.2012.338
    1. Yancovitz M, Litterman A, Yoon J, et al. : Intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity of BRAF(V600E) mutations in primary and metastatic melanoma. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29336 10.1371/journal.pone.0029336
    1. Berglund SR, Schwietert CW, Jones AA, et al. : Optimized methodology for sequential extraction of RNA and protein from small human skin biopsies. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(2):349–353 10.1038/sj.jid.5700557
    1. Bruning O, Rodenburg W, Radonic T, et al. : RNA isolation for transcriptomics of human and mouse small skin biopsies. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:438 10.1186/1756-0500-4-438
    1. Dang C, Gottschling M, Manning K, et al. : Identification of dysregulated genes in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Oncol Rep. 2006;16(3):513–519
    1. Fitzpatrick TB: The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124(6):869–871 10.1001/archderm.1988.01670060015008

Source: PubMed

3
Subskrybuj