-
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational... 2024Lichen planopilaris (LPP) and discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) are primary scarring alopecias that pose diagnostic challenges clinically, where trichoscopy features may... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Lichen planopilaris (LPP) and discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE) are primary scarring alopecias that pose diagnostic challenges clinically, where trichoscopy features may provide benefit in delineating these two cicatricial alopecia, and also helps in assessing the evolution and therapeutic response. To date, there are few reviews on dermoscopic findings in differentiating these two alopecias.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. The search terms included for scalp DLE were 'lupus' OR 'discoid lupus' OR "scalp lupus" and for scalp LPP were "lichen planopilaris" OR "scalp follicular lichen planus" OR "lichen planus follicularis" and were combined with "dermoscopy" OR "dermatoscopy" OR "videodermoscopy" OR "video dermatoscopy" OR "trichoscopy". The differences in the prevalence of dermoscopic features in scalp DLE and LPP were calculated using the Chi-square test.
RESULTS
Of 52 articles, 36 (17 LPP, 19 DLE) were eligible for quantitative analysis. We found predominant peripilar tubular casts and perifollicular erythema with the presence of arborizing vessels in the vicinity of these changes, indicating early LPP. In contrast, follicular red dots, speckled brown pigmentation, and hair diameter variability indicated active DLE. Shiny white areas were common in both the groups in late stages. The target pattern of distribution of blue-grey dots, milky red areas, and irregular white fibrotic dots were seen in LPP, and pink-white background, follicular plugs, perifollicular and interfollicular scale, rosettes, chrysalides, and red spider on yellow dots were detected in DLE. Features such as yellow dots and blue-grey structureless areas were nonspecific and did not have a major role in differentiating DLE from LPP.
CONCLUSION
This article provides a comprehensive review of the literature and delineates the trichoscopic differences and peculiarities of scalp DLE and LPP, including the correlation of dermoscopic features with histopathological findings.
PubMed: 38616887
DOI: 10.2147/CCID.S460742 -
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases Mar 2024Visceral leishmaniasis (VL), or kala-azar, is a vector-borne tropical disease caused by a group of intracellular hemoflagellate protozoa belonging to the family of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Visceral leishmaniasis (VL), or kala-azar, is a vector-borne tropical disease caused by a group of intracellular hemoflagellate protozoa belonging to the family of Trypanosomatide and the genus Leishmania. The disease is distributed around the world and transmitted via the bite of infected female Phlebotomine sandflies, and there is variation in the diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled global sensitivity and specificity of the rk-39 test and to evaluate if there is a difference between the different parts of the world.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted on the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. After setting eligibility criteria, literature was searched in four databases and one searching engine. Articles were screened, critically appraised, and extracted independently by two reviewers, and any disagreements were resolved with the involvement of a third person. The quality of the included studies had been assessed by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS 2) tool. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were determined by bivariate random effect analysis. Heterogeneity was assessed by Higgins's I2, and when it was present, mitigation was conducted by using sensitivity analysis.
RESULT
A total of 409 studies were identified, and finally 18 articles were eligible for the review with a total sample size of 5, 253. The bivariate random effect meta-analysis of the 7 diagnostic accuracy studies showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (0.76-0.95) and specificity of 0.86 (0.72-0.94). The +LR was 6.32 (95% CI: 2.85-14.02), the-LR was 0.13 (95% CI: 0.06-0.30), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 47.8 (95% CI: 11.3-203.2). Abdel-Latif (2018) was both an outlier and influential for sensitivity, and Walter (2011) was both an outlier and influential for specificity, and removing them from sensitivity and specificity, respectively, was beneficial for reducing the heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION
Rk-39 is found to have highly accurate measures in the diagnosis of visceral leishmaniasis. Both sensitivity and specificity were found to be highly accurate in the diagnosis of leishmaniasis, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.91 (0.88-0.93) and a pooled specificity of 0.89 (0.85-0.91).
ETHICAL CONSIDERATION
As we will use secondary data for the systematic review and meta-analysis, ethical concerns are not necessary.
Topics: Humans; Leishmaniasis, Visceral; Odds Ratio; Serologic Tests
PubMed: 38446789
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0011938 -
The British Journal of Dermatology Feb 2020Over the last few years, several articles on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses have been published, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among...
Standardization of dermoscopic terminology and basic dermoscopic parameters to evaluate in general dermatology (non-neoplastic dermatoses): an expert consensus on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society.
BACKGROUND
Over the last few years, several articles on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses have been published, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to standardize the dermoscopic terminology and identify basic parameters to evaluate in non-neoplastic dermatoses through an expert consensus.
METHODS
The modified Delphi method was followed, with two phases: (i) identification of a list of possible items based on a systematic literature review and (ii) selection of parameters by a panel of experts through a three-step iterative procedure (blinded e-mail interaction in rounds 1 and 3 and a face-to-face meeting in round 2). Initial panellists were recruited via e-mail from all over the world based on their expertise on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses.
RESULTS
Twenty-four international experts took part in all rounds of the consensus and 13 further international participants were also involved in round 2. Five standardized basic parameters were identified: (i) vessels (including morphology and distribution); (ii) scales (including colour and distribution); (iii) follicular findings; (iv) 'other structures' (including colour and morphology); and (v) 'specific clues'. For each of them, possible variables were selected, with a total of 31 different subitems reaching agreement at the end of the consensus (all of the 29 proposed initially plus two more added in the course of the consensus procedure).
CONCLUSIONS
This expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This tool, if adopted by clinicians and researchers in this field, is likely to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology. What's already known about this topic? Over the last few years, several papers have been published attempting to describe the dermoscopic features of non-neoplastic dermatoses, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. What does this study add? The present expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This consensus should enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology.
Topics: Consensus; Dermatology; Dermoscopy; Humans; Reference Standards; Reproducibility of Results; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 31077336
DOI: 10.1111/bjd.18125 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2021Melanoma has the highest mortality rate among skin cancers, and early-diagnosis is essential to maximize survival rate. The current procedure for melanoma diagnosis is...
Melanoma has the highest mortality rate among skin cancers, and early-diagnosis is essential to maximize survival rate. The current procedure for melanoma diagnosis is based on dermoscopy, i.e., a qualitative visual inspection of lesions with intrinsic limited diagnostic reliability and reproducibility. Other non-invasive diagnostic techniques may represent valuable solutions to retrieve additional objective information of a lesion. This review aims to compare the diagnostic performance of non-invasive techniques, alternative to dermoscopy, for melanoma detection in clinical settings. A systematic review of the available literature was performed using PubMed, Scopus and Google scholar databases (2010-September 2020). All human, , non-invasive studies using techniques, alternative to dermoscopy, for melanoma diagnosis were included with no restriction on the recruited population. The reference standard was histology but dermoscopy was accepted only in case of benign lesions. Attributes of the analyzed studies were compared, and the quality was evaluated using CASP Checklist. For studies in which the investigated technique was implemented as a diagnostic tool (DTA studies), the QUADAS-2 tool was applied. For DTA studies that implemented a melanoma vs. other skin lesions classification task, a meta-analysis was performed reporting the SROC curves. Sixty-two references were included in the review, of which thirty-eight were analyzed using QUADAS-2. Study designs were: clinical trials (13), retrospective studies (10), prospective studies (8), pilot studies (10), multitiered study (1); the remain studies were proof of concept or had undefined study type. Studies were divided in categories based on the physical principle employed by each diagnostic technique. Twenty-nine out of thirty-eight DTA studies were included in the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity of studies' types, testing strategy, and diagnostic task limited the systematic comparison of the techniques. Based on the SROC curves, spectroscopy achieved the best performance in terms of sensitivity (93%, 95% CI 92.8-93.2%) and specificity (85.2%, 95%CI 84.9-85.5%), even though there was high concern regarding robustness of metrics. Reflectance-confocal-microscopy, instead, demonstrated higher robustness and a good diagnostic performance (sensitivity 88.2%, 80.3-93.1%; specificity 65.2%, 55-74.2%). Best practice recommendations were proposed to reduce bias in future DTA studies. Particular attention should be dedicated to widen the use of alternative techniques to conventional dermoscopy.
PubMed: 33968951
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.637069 -
Acta Dermato-venereologica Dec 2021Research interest in dermoscopy is increasing, but the complete dermoscopic image sets used in inter-observer studies of skin tumours are not often shared in research...
Research interest in dermoscopy is increasing, but the complete dermoscopic image sets used in inter-observer studies of skin tumours are not often shared in research publications. The aim of this systematic review was to analyse what proportion of images depicting skin tumours are published in studies investigating inter-observer variations in the assessment of dermoscopic features and/or patterns. Embase, MEDLINE and Scopus databases were screened for eligible studies published from inception to 2 July 2020. For included studies the proportion of lesion images presented in the papers and/or supplements was extracted. A total of 61 studies (53 original studies and 8 shorter reports (i.e. research letters or concise reports)). published in the period 1997 to 2020 were included. These studies combined included 14,124 skin tumours, of which 373 (3%) images were published. This systematic review highlights that the vast majority of images included in dermoscopy research are not published. Data sharing should be a requirement for future studies, and must be enabled and standardized by the dermatology research community and editorial offices.
PubMed: 34853864
DOI: 10.2340/actadv.v101.865 -
European Journal of Cancer (Oxford,... Oct 2021Multiple studies have compared the performance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based models for automated skin cancer classification to human experts, thus setting the...
BACKGROUND
Multiple studies have compared the performance of artificial intelligence (AI)-based models for automated skin cancer classification to human experts, thus setting the cornerstone for a successful translation of AI-based tools into clinicopathological practice.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study was to systematically analyse the current state of research on reader studies involving melanoma and to assess their potential clinical relevance by evaluating three main aspects: test set characteristics (holdout/out-of-distribution data set, composition), test setting (experimental/clinical, inclusion of metadata) and representativeness of participating clinicians.
METHODS
PubMed, Medline and ScienceDirect were screened for peer-reviewed studies published between 2017 and 2021 and dealing with AI-based skin cancer classification involving melanoma. The search terms skin cancer classification, deep learning, convolutional neural network (CNN), melanoma (detection), digital biomarkers, histopathology and whole slide imaging were combined. Based on the search results, only studies that considered direct comparison of AI results with clinicians and had a diagnostic classification as their main objective were included.
RESULTS
A total of 19 reader studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 CNN-based approaches addressed the classification of dermoscopic images; 6 concentrated on the classification of clinical images, whereas 2 dermatopathological studies utilised digitised histopathological whole slide images.
CONCLUSIONS
All 19 included studies demonstrated superior or at least equivalent performance of CNN-based classifiers compared with clinicians. However, almost all studies were conducted in highly artificial settings based exclusively on single images of the suspicious lesions. Moreover, test sets mainly consisted of holdout images and did not represent the full range of patient populations and melanoma subtypes encountered in clinical practice.
Topics: Automation; Biopsy; Clinical Competence; Deep Learning; Dermatologists; Dermoscopy; Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted; Humans; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; Melanoma; Microscopy; Neural Networks, Computer; Pathologists; Predictive Value of Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 34509059
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.06.049 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Feb 2020To examine the validity and findings of studies that examine the accuracy of algorithm based smartphone applications ("apps") to assess risk of skin cancer in suspicious...
OBJECTIVE
To examine the validity and findings of studies that examine the accuracy of algorithm based smartphone applications ("apps") to assess risk of skin cancer in suspicious skin lesions.
DESIGN
Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.
DATA SOURCES
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CPCI, Zetoc, Science Citation Index, and online trial registers (from database inception to 10 April 2019).
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Studies of any design that evaluated algorithm based smartphone apps to assess images of skin lesions suspicious for skin cancer. Reference standards included histological diagnosis or follow-up, and expert recommendation for further investigation or intervention. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed validity using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool). Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were reported for each app.
RESULTS
Nine studies that evaluated six different identifiable smartphone apps were included. Six verified results by using histology or follow-up (n=725 lesions), and three verified results by using expert recommendations (n=407 lesions). Studies were small and of poor methodological quality, with selective recruitment, high rates of unevaluable images, and differential verification. Lesion selection and image acquisition were performed by clinicians rather than smartphone users. Two CE (Conformit Europenne) marked apps are available for download. SkinScan was evaluated in a single study (n=15, five melanomas) with 0% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of melanoma. SkinVision was evaluated in two studies (n=252, 61 malignant or premalignant lesions) and achieved a sensitivity of 80% (95% confidence interval 63% to 92%) and a specificity of 78% (67% to 87%) for the detection of malignant or premalignant lesions. Accuracy of the SkinVision app verified against expert recommendations was poor (three studies).
CONCLUSIONS
Current algorithm based smartphone apps cannot be relied on to detect all cases of melanoma or other skin cancers. Test performance is likely to be poorer than reported here when used in clinically relevant populations and by the intended users of the apps. The current regulatory process for awarding the CE marking for algorithm based apps does not provide adequate protection to the public.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016033595.
Topics: Algorithms; Biopsy; Dermoscopy; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Melanoma; Mobile Applications; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Assessment; Skin; Skin Neoplasms; Smartphone
PubMed: 32041693
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.m127