Improving Diagnostic Accuracy of Dermoscopically Equivocal Pink Cutaneous Lesions with Reflectance Confocal Microscopy in Telemedicine Settings: Double Reader Concordance Evaluation of 316 Cases

Reflectance confocal microscopy versus dermoscopy for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma: a head-to-head comparative meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the comparative diagnostic performance of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and dermoscopy in detecting cutaneous melanoma patients. An extensive search was conducted in the PubMed and Embase databases to identify available publications up to December 2023. Studies were included if they evaluated the diagnostic performance of RCM and dermoscopy in patients with cutaneous melanoma. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Performance Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. A total of 14 articles involving 2013 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall sensitivity of RCM was 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-0.98], while the overall sensitivity of dermoscopy was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.71-0.95). These results suggested that RCM has a similar level of sensitivity compared with dermoscopy ( P  = 0.15). In contrast, the overall specificity of RCM was 0.76 (95% CI, 0.67-0.85), while the overall specificity of dermoscopy was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.31-0.63). The results indicated that RCM appears to have a higher specificity in comparison to dermoscopy ( P  < 0.01). Our meta-analysis indicates that RCM demonstrates superior specificity and similar sensitivity to dermoscopy in detecting cutaneous melanoma patients. The high heterogeneity, however, may impact the evidence of the current study, further larger sample prospective research is required to confirm these findings.

Lead Time from First Suspicion of Malignant Melanoma in Primary Care to Diagnostic Excision: a Cohort Study Comparing Teledermatoscopy and Traditional Referral to a Dermatology Clinic at a Tertiary Hospital

INTRODUCTION

The increasing use of teledermatoscopy in clinical practice has led to demands to evaluate the effects of this new technology on traditional healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVES

To study lead times from first consultation in primary care to diagnostic excision of suspected malignant melanoma lesions in traditional referrals to a tertiary hospital-based dermatology clinic compared with mobile teledermatoscopy referrals.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study design was used. Data on sex, age, pathology, caregivers, clinical diagnosis, date for first visit to primary care unit, and date for diagnostic excision were collected from medical records. Patients managed through traditional referral (n=53) were compared with patients managed at primary care units using teledermatoscopy (n=128) regarding lead time from first visit to diagnostic excision.

RESULTS

Mean time from date of first visit at primary care unit to diagnostic excision did not differ between the traditional referral and teledermatoscopy groups (16.2 vs. 15.7 days, median 10 vs. 13 days, p=0.657). Lead times from date of referral to diagnostic excision did not significantly differ (15.7 vs. 12.8 days, median 10 vs. 9 days, p=0.464).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicates that lead time to diagnostic excision for patients with suspected malignant melanoma managed by teledermatoscopy was comparable and not inferior to that of the traditional referral pathway. If teledermatoscopy is used at first consultation in primary care, it could potentially be more efficient than traditional referral.

Telemedicine for Surgical Site Infection Diagnosis in Rural Rwanda: Concordance and Accuracy of Image Reviews

BACKGROUND

In rural Africa where access to medical personnel is limited, telemedicine can be leveraged to empower community health workers (CHWs) to support effective postpartum home-based care after cesarean section (c-section). As a first step toward telemedicine, we assessed the sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability of image-based diagnosis of surgical site infections (SSIs) among women delivering via c-section at a rural Rwandan Hospital.

METHODS

Women ≥18 years who underwent c-section from March to October 2017 at Kirehe District Hospital (KDH) were enrolled. On postoperative day 10 at KDH, participants underwent a physical examination by a general practitioner, who provided a diagnosis of SSI or no SSI. Trained CHWs photographed patients' incisions and the collected images were shown to six physicians, who upon review, assigned one of the following diagnoses to each image: definite SSI, suspected SSI, suspected no SSI, and definite no SSI, which were compared with the diagnoses based on physical exam. We report the sensitivity and specificity and assessed reviewer agreement using Gwet's AC1.

RESULTS

569 images were included, with 61 women (10.7%) diagnosed with an SSI. Of the 3414 image-reviews, 49 (1.4%) could not be assigned diagnoses due to image quality. The median sensitivity and specificity were 0.83 and 0.69, respectively. The Gwet's AC1 estimate for binary classification was 0.46.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate decent accuracy but only moderate consistency for photograph-based SSI diagnosis. Strategies to improve overall agreement include providing clinical information to accompany photographs, providing a baseline photograph for comparison, and implementing photograph-taking processes aimed at improving image quality.

Tips for difficult to diagnose hypomelanotic melanomas on reflectance confocal microscopy

Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma (AHM) represents a clinical diagnostic challenge. Dermoscopy improves AHM diagnosis thanks to visualization of little pigment and vascular pattern. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) increases further the diagnostic accuracy of AHM but few and small studies have described in detail RCM features of AHM. We evaluated dermoscopic and RCM features of nine cases of difficult to diagnose hypomelanotic melanomas (HMs) to find clues for their diagnosis. The RCM score was suggestive of melanoma in all cases. The major criteria of nonedged papillae and/or cytological atypia at the dermo-epidermal junction were seen in all cases. Among the minor criteria, roundish pagetoid cells, including hyporeflective pagetoid cells, were found in four out of nine lesions. Dermoscopically, four out of nine HMs did not show prevalent suspicious criteria while revealing suspicious RCM features that were visible only after careful RCM examination by zooming mosaic images. RCM can improve HM diagnostic accuracy but only after extensive evaluation of images. Atypical cells were less reflective and the architectural irregularity was less visible than in pigmented melanoma and zooming was needed to identify both features.

Melanoma Early Detection: Big Data, Bigger Picture

Innovative technologies, including novel communication and imaging tools, are affecting dermatology in profound ways. A burning question for the field is whether we will retrospectively react to innovations or proactively leverage them to benefit precision medicine. Early detection of melanoma is a dermatologic area particularly poised to benefit from such innovation. This session of the Montagna Symposium on Biology of Skin focused on provocative, potentially disruptive advances, including crowdsourcing of patient advocacy efforts, rigorous experimental design of public education campaigns, research with mobile phone applications, advanced skin imaging technologies, and the emergence of artificial intelligence as a diagnostic supplement.

Reflectance confocal microscopy for diagnosing cutaneous melanoma in adults

BACKGROUND

Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Early detection and treatment is key to improving survival; however, anxiety around missing early cases needs to be balanced against appropriate levels of referral and excision of benign lesions. Used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, or both, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) may reduce unnecessary excisions without missing melanoma cases.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of reflectance confocal microscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and lesions that are difficult to diagnose, and to compare its accuracy with that of dermoscopy.

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; and seven other databases. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of any design that evaluated RCM alone, or RCM in comparison to dermoscopy, in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. To compare RCM with dermoscopy, we grouped studies by population (defined by difficulty of lesion diagnosis) and combined data using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of specificity at the point on the SROC curve with 90% sensitivity as this value lies within the estimates for the majority of analyses. We investigated the impact of using a purposely developed RCM algorithm and in-person test interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 18 publications reporting on 19 study cohorts with 2838 lesions (including 658 with melanoma), which provided 67 datasets for RCM and seven for dermoscopy. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias across almost all domains and of high or unclear concern regarding applicability of the evidence. Selective participant recruitment, lack of blinding of the reference test to the RCM result, and differential verification were particularly problematic. Studies may not be representative of populations eligible for RCM, and test interpretation was often undertaken remotely from the patient and blinded to clinical information.Meta-analysis found RCM to be more accurate than dermoscopy in studies of participants with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and in participants with lesions that were more difficult to diagnose (equivocal lesion populations). Assuming a fixed sensitivity of 90% for both tests, specificities were 82% for RCM and 42% for dermoscopy for any lesion suspicious for melanoma (9 RCM datasets; 1452 lesions and 370 melanomas). For a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions at the median observed melanoma prevalence of 30%, this equated to a reduction in unnecessary excisions with RCM of 280 compared to dermoscopy, with 30 melanomas missed by both tests. For studies in equivocal lesions, specificities of 86% would be observed for RCM and 49% for dermoscopy (7 RCM datasets; 1177 lesions and 180 melanomas). At the median observed melanoma prevalence of 20%, this reduced unnecessary excisions by 296 with RCM compared with dermoscopy, with 20 melanomas missed by both tests. Across all populations, algorithms and thresholds assessed, the sensitivity and specificity of the Pellacani RCM score at a threshold of three or greater were estimated at 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87 to 95) for RCM and 72% (95% CI 62 to 81) for dermoscopy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RCM may have a potential role in clinical practice, particularly for the assessment of lesions that are difficult to diagnose using visual inspection and dermoscopy alone, where the evidence suggests that RCM may be both more sensitive and specific in comparison to dermoscopy. Given the paucity of data to allow comparison with dermoscopy, the results presented require further confirmation in prospective studies comparing RCM with dermoscopy in a real-world setting in a representative population.

Reflectance confocal microscopy for diagnosing keratinocyte skin cancers in adults

BACKGROUND

Early accurate detection of all skin cancer types is important to guide appropriate management and improve morbidity and survival. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually a localised skin cancer but with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue, whereas cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and melanoma are higher risk skin cancers with the potential to metastasise and ultimately lead to death. When used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, or both, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) may help to identify cancers eligible for non-surgical treatment without the need for a diagnostic biopsy, particularly in people with suspected BCC. Any potential benefit must be balanced against the risk of any misdiagnoses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of RCM for the detection of BCC, cSCC, or any skin cancer in adults with any suspicious lesion and lesions that are difficult to diagnose (equivocal); and to compare its accuracy with that of usual practice (visual inspection or dermoscopy, or both).

SEARCH METHODS

We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of any design that evaluated the accuracy of RCM alone, or RCM in comparison to visual inspection or dermoscopy, or both, in adults with lesions suspicious for skin cancer compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities using the bivariate hierarchical model. For computation of likely numbers of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative findings in the 'Summary of findings' tables, we applied summary sensitivity and specificity estimates to lower quartile, median and upper quartiles of the prevalence observed in the study groups. We also investigated the impact of observer experience.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included 10 studies reporting on 11 study cohorts. All 11 cohorts reported data for the detection of BCC, including 2037 lesions (464 with BCC); and four cohorts reported data for the detection of cSCC, including 834 lesions (71 with cSCC). Only one study also reported data for the detection of BCC or cSCC using dermoscopy, limiting comparisons between RCM and dermoscopy. Studies were at high or unclear risk of bias across almost all methodological quality domains, and were of high or unclear concern regarding applicability of the evidence. Selective participant recruitment, unclear blinding of the reference test, and exclusions due to image quality or technical difficulties were observed. It was unclear whether studies were representative of populations eligible for testing with RCM, and test interpretation was often undertaken using images, remotely from the participant and the interpreter blinded to clinical information that would normally be available in practice.Meta-analysis found RCM to be more sensitive but less specific for the detection of BCC in studies of participants with equivocal lesions (sensitivity 94%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 79% to 98%; specificity 85%, 95% CI 72% to 92%; 3 studies) compared to studies that included any suspicious lesion (sensitivity 76%, 95% CI 45% to 92%; specificity 95%, 95% CI 66% to 99%; 4 studies), although CIs were wide. At the median prevalence of disease of 12.5% observed in studies including any suspicious lesion, applying these results to a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions results in 30 BCCs missed with 44 false-positive results (lesions misdiagnosed as BCCs). At the median prevalence of disease of 15% observed in studies of equivocal lesions, nine BCCs would be missed with 128 false-positive results in a population of 1000 lesions. Across both sets of studies, up to 15% of these false-positive lesions were observed to be melanomas mistaken for BCCs. There was some suggestion of higher sensitivities in studies with more experienced observers. Summary sensitivity and specificity could not be estimated for the detection of cSCC due to paucity of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence for the use of RCM for the diagnosis of BCC or cSCC in either population group. A possible role for RCM in clinical practice is as a tool to avoid diagnostic biopsies in lesions with a relatively high clinical suspicion of BCC. The potential for, and consequences of, misclassification of other skin cancers such as melanoma as BCCs requires further research. Importantly, data are lacking that compare RCM to standard clinical practice (with or without dermoscopy).

Methods of melanoma detection and of skin monitoring for individuals at high risk of melanoma: new Australian clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

The evidence-based national clinical practice guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma published in 2008 are currently being updated. This article summarises the findings from multiple chapters of the guidelines on different methods of melanoma detection and of monitoring the skin for patients at high risk of melanoma. Early detection of melanoma is critical, as thinner tumours are associated with enhanced survival; therefore, strategies to improve early detection are important to reduce melanoma-related mortality.

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS

Clinicians who perform skin examinations for the purpose of detecting skin cancer should be trained in and use dermoscopy. The use of short term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging to detect melanomas that lack dermoscopic features of melanoma is recommended to assess individual melanocytic lesions of concern. The use of long term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging to detect melanomas that lack dermoscopic features of melanoma is recommended to assess individual or multiple melanocytic lesions for routine surveillance of high risk patients. The use of total body photography should be considered in managing patients at increased risk for melanoma, particularly those with high naevus counts and dysplastic naevi. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of automated instruments for the clinical diagnosis of primary melanoma.

MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW

Determining the relative indications for each diagnostic method and how each method should be introduced into the surveillance of a patient requires careful consideration and an individualised approach.

Seborrheic keratoses mimicking melanoma unveiled by in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy

BACKGROUND

Seborrheic keratoses (SebK) with atypical dermoscopy presentation are increasingly reported. These lesions do not exhibit typical dermoscopy features of SebK and sometimes mimic melanoma, thus complicating the differential diagnosis. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a non-invasive tool, which allows an in vivo imaging of the skin. The study objectives were to evaluate the agreement between RCM classification and histological diagnoses, and the reliability of well-known RCM criteria for SebK in the identification of SebK with atypical dermoscopy presentation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analysed at RCM excised lesions presenting in dermoscopy ≥1 score at revisited 7-point checklist. The study population consisted of cases showing no melanocytic RCM findings. Lesions were investigated for distinct non-melanocytic RCM features, blinded from histopathology diagnoses. Histopathology matching was then performed before statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The study consisted of 117 cases, classified at RCM as SebK (71 cases), dermatofibroma (18 cases), basal cell carcinoma (13 cases), squamous cell carcinoma (2 cases), and "non-specific" (13 cases). Overall K strength of agreement at histopathology matching proved 0.76. Of the 71 cases classified at RCM with SebK, agreement was achieved in 97%.

CONCLUSION

Reflectance confocal microscopy classification proved high agreement with histopathology for SebK with atypical dermoscopy presentations, allowing an early differential diagnosis. RCM features in this group of lesions were similar to those described for typical cases of SebK, and may assist clinician therapy decision making, whilst avoiding unnecessary excisions.

Improving diagnostic sensitivity of combined dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy imaging through double reader concordance evaluation in telemedicine settings: A retrospective study of 1000 equivocal cases

BACKGROUND

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is an imaging device that permits non-invasive visualization of cellular morphology and has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopically equivocal cutaneous lesions. The application of double reader concordance evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets in retrospective settings and its potential application to telemedicine evaluation has not been tested in a large study population.

OBJECTIVE

To improve diagnostic sensitivity of RCM image diagnosis using a double reader concordance evaluation approach; to reduce mismanagement of equivocal cutaneous lesions in retrospective consultation and telemedicine settings.

METHODS

1000 combined dermoscopy-RCM image sets were evaluated in blind by 10 readers with advanced training and internship in dermoscopy and RCM evaluation. We compared sensitivity and specificity of single reader evaluation versus double reader concordance evaluation as well as the effect of diagnostic confidence on lesion management in a retrospective setting.

RESULTS

Single reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 95.2% and specificity of 76.3%, with misdiagnosis of 8 melanomas, 4 basal cell carcinomas and 2 squamous cell carcinomas. Combined double reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 98.3% and specificity of 65.5%, with misdiagnosis of 1 in-situ melanoma and 2 basal cell carcinomas.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets of cutaneous lesions by single reader evaluation in retrospective settings is limited by sensitivity levels that may result in potential mismanagement of malignant lesions. Double reader blind concordance evaluation may improve the sensitivity of diagnosis and management safety. The use of a second check can be implemented in telemedicine settings where expert consultation and second opinions may be required.

Using survey methods in telehealth research: A practical guide

Surveys are a common method for assessing patient and clinician perceptions, attitudes and outcomes of telehealth. However, inadequacies in both the conduct and reporting of survey studies are common in telehealth research. This article provides clinicians and researchers with practical guidance on the appropriate selection, use and reporting of survey tools for telehealth research. We identify common survey outcomes and instruments used in telehealth research, and methods to assess the validity and psychometric properties of survey tools. Enhancing the quality and reporting of telehealth research is important to improve our understanding of which telehealth-supported models of care improve outcomes and for which patient groups.