-
Dermatology Practical & Conceptual Oct 2020Dermoscopy is a tool that aids clinicians in the diagnosis of actinic keratosis; however, few diagnostic accuracy studies have determined its sensitivity and specificity... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Dermoscopy is a tool that aids clinicians in the diagnosis of actinic keratosis; however, few diagnostic accuracy studies have determined its sensitivity and specificity for this diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE
Determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy on actinic keratosis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted on EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception to August 2019.
RESULTS
We screened 485 titles and abstracts. Two studies comprising 219 actinic keratoses were eligible for qualitative analysis. The number and heterogeneity of included studies limited a quantitative analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
Studies that focus specifically on the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for actinic keratosis are lacking.
PubMed: 33150042
DOI: 10.5826/dpc.1004a121 -
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 -
Dermatology and Therapy Feb 2020An increased incidence of tinea capitis has been observed over the last few decades. Trichoscopy is a non-invasive, in-office method helpful in establishing the correct... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
An increased incidence of tinea capitis has been observed over the last few decades. Trichoscopy is a non-invasive, in-office method helpful in establishing the correct diagnosis in patients with hair loss and inflammatory hair disorders. The objective was to review and analyze current data on the trichoscopy of tinea capitis.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted using the PubMed, EBSCO and Scopus databases. The search terms included 'tinea capitis' combined with 'trichoscopy', 'dermatoscopy', 'dermoscopy', 'videodermatoscopy' or 'videodermoscopy'.
RESULTS
Of 326 articles, 37 were considered eligible for the quantitative analysis. The most characteristic (with a high predictive value) trichoscopic findings of tinea capitis included comma hairs (51%), corkscrew hairs (32%), Morse code-like hairs (22%), zigzag hairs (21%), bent hairs (27%), block hairs (10%) and i-hairs (10%). Other common, but not characteristic, trichoscopic features were broken hairs (57%), black dots (34%), perifollicular scaling (59%) and diffuse scaling (89%). Morse code-like hairs, zigzag hairs, bent hairs and diffuse scaling were only observed in Microsporum tinea capitis (8/29, 28%; 6/29, 21%; 4/29, 14% and 4/29, 14%, respectively). In Trichophyton tinea capitis, corkscrew hairs were more commonly detected compared to Microsporum tinea capitis (21/38, 55% vs 3/29, 10%).
CONCLUSION
The presence of characteristic trichoscopic features of tinea capitis is sufficient to establish the initial diagnosis and introduce treatment before culture results are available. Trichoscopy may be useful in distinguishing between Microsporum and Trichophyton tinea capitis.
PubMed: 31907867
DOI: 10.1007/s13555-019-00350-1 -
Journal of the American Academy of... Sep 2021Multiple studies have reported on dermoscopic structures in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and its subtypes, with varying results.
BACKGROUND
Multiple studies have reported on dermoscopic structures in basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and its subtypes, with varying results.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the prevalence of dermoscopic structures in BCC and its subtypes.
METHODS
Databases and reference lists were searched for relevant trials according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were assessed for the relative proportion of BCC dermoscopic features. Random-effects models were used to estimate summary effect sizes.
RESULTS
Included were 31 studies consisting of 5950 BCCs. The most common dermoscopic features seen in BCC were arborizing vessels (59%), shiny white structures (49%), and large blue-grey ovoid nests (34%). Arborizing vessels, ulceration, and blue-grey ovoid nests and globules were most common in nodular BCC; short-fine telangiectasia, multiple small erosions, and leaf-like, spoke wheel and concentric structures in superficial BCC; porcelain white areas and arborizing vessels in morpheaform BCC; and arborizing vessels and ulceration in infiltrative BCC.
LIMITATIONS
Studies had significant heterogeneity. Studies reporting BCC histopathologic subtypes did not provide clinical data on pigmentation of lesions.
CONCLUSION
In addition to arborizing vessels, shiny white structures are a common feature of BCC. A constellation of dermoscopic features may aid in differentiating between BCC histopathologic subtypes.
Topics: Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Dermoscopy; Humans; Pigmentation; Pigmentation Disorders; Skin Neoplasms
PubMed: 31706938
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.11.008 -
BMJ Open Aug 2019Most skin lesions first present in primary care, where distinguishing rare melanomas from benign lesions can be challenging. Dermoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy...
OBJECTIVE
Most skin lesions first present in primary care, where distinguishing rare melanomas from benign lesions can be challenging. Dermoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy among specialists and is promoted for use by primary care physicians (PCPs). However, when used by untrained clinicians, accuracy may be no better than visual inspection. This study aimed to undertake a systematic review of literature reporting use of dermoscopy to triage suspicious skin lesions in primary care settings, and challenges for implementation.
DESIGN
A systematic literature review and narrative synthesis.
DATA SOURCES
We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and SCOPUS bibliographic databases from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2017, without language restrictions.
INCLUSION CRITERIA
Studies including assessment of dermoscopy accuracy, acceptability to patients and PCPs, training requirements, and cost-effectiveness of dermoscopy modes in primary care, including trials, diagnostic accuracy and acceptability studies.
RESULTS
23 studies met the review criteria, representing 49 769 lesions and 3708 PCPs, all from high-income countries. There was a paucity of studies set truly in primary care and the outcomes measured were diverse. The heterogeneity therefore made meta-analysis unfeasible; the data were synthesised through narrative review. Dermoscopy, with appropriate training, was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy for melanoma and benign lesions, and reduced unnecessary excisions and referrals. Teledermoscopy-based referral systems improved triage accuracy. Only three studies examined cost-effectiveness; hence, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions. Costs, training and time requirements were considered important implementation barriers. Patient satisfaction was seldom assessed. Computer-aided dermoscopy and other technological advances have not yet been tested in primary care.
CONCLUSIONS
Dermoscopy could help PCPs triage suspicious lesions for biopsy, urgent referral or reassurance. However, it will be important to establish further evidence on minimum training requirements to reach competence, as well as the cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability of implementing dermoscopy in primary care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42018091395.
Topics: Biopsy; Dermoscopy; Humans; Melanoma; Primary Health Care; Reproducibility of Results; Skin Neoplasms; Triage
PubMed: 31434767
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027529 -
JAMA Dermatology Oct 2019To date, no concerted effort has been made to date to evaluate the literature on number-needed-to-biopsy (NNB) metrics, particularly to account for the differences in...
IMPORTANCE
To date, no concerted effort has been made to date to evaluate the literature on number-needed-to-biopsy (NNB) metrics, particularly to account for the differences in clinician type and melanoma prevalence in certain geographic locations.
OBJECTIVE
To review and synthesize worldwide data for NNB for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma.
DATA SOURCE
MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched for English-language articles published worldwide from January 1, 2000, to November 28, 2018.
STUDY SELECTION
A total of 46 studies were included that addressed NNB for at least 3681 clinicians worldwide and included 455 496 biopsied tumors and 29 257 melanomas; primary care practitioner (PCP) data were only available from Australia.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Articles were screened for eligibility, and possible overlapping data sets were resolved. Data extracted included clinician specialization, use of dermoscopy, geographic region and location-specific health care system, study design, number of benign tumors, number of melanomas, and NNB. The review followed the PRISMA guidelines.
MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES
The NNB for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma.
RESULTS
A total of 46 studies were included that addressed NNB for at least 3681 clinicians worldwide and included 455 496 biopsied tumors and 29 257 melanomas; primary care practitioner (PCP) data were only available from Australia. The reported NNB ranged from 2.2 to 287, and the weighted mean NNB for all included publications was 15.6. The exclusion of publications structured as all biopsied tumors, owing to variable data characterization, resulted in reported NNB ranging from 2.2 to 30.5, with a global weighted mean NNB of 14.8 for all clinicians, 7.5 for all dermatologists, 14.6 for Australian PCPs, and 13.2 for all US-based dermatological practitioners, including dermatologists and advanced practice professionals. The summary effect size (ES) demonstrates that a mean 4% of biopsies demonstrated melanoma for study stratum A (all biopsied skin tumors, ES, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.03-0.05), and a mean 12% of biopsies demonstrated melanoma for study strata B (melanocytic tumors on pathology review, ES, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.10-0.14) and C (clinical concern for melanoma, ES; 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.14).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The existing NNB for cutaneous melanoma appeared to vary widely worldwide, lacking standardization in the metric and its reporting, and according to clinician characteristics as well; the NNB of US-based clinicians may warrant further exploration.
PubMed: 31290958
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.1514 -
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