-
BMJ Open Mar 2017Malignant melanoma has high morbidity and mortality rates. Early diagnosis improves prognosis. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can be used to stratify patients with... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Malignant melanoma has high morbidity and mortality rates. Early diagnosis improves prognosis. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected malignant melanoma to improve early diagnosis. We conducted a systematic review of CPRs for melanoma diagnosis in ambulatory care.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, PROSPERO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS was conducted in May 2015, using combinations of keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms.
STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION
Studies deriving and validating, validating or assessing the impact of a CPR for predicting melanoma diagnosis in ambulatory care were included. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were guided by the CHARMS checklist.
RESULTS
From 16 334 studies reviewed, 51 were included, validating the performance of 24 unique CPRs. Three impact analysis studies were identified. Five studies were set in primary care. The most commonly evaluated CPRs were the ABCD, more than one or uneven distribution of Colour, or a large (greater than 6 mm) Diameter (ABCD) dermoscopy rule (at a cut-point of >4.75; 8 studies; pooled sensitivity 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93, specificity 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78) and the 7-point dermoscopy checklist (at a cut-point of ≥1 recommending ruling in melanoma; 11 studies; pooled sensitivity 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88, specificity 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). The methodological quality of studies varied.
CONCLUSIONS
At their recommended cut-points, the ABCD dermoscopy rule is more useful for ruling out melanoma than the 7-point dermoscopy checklist. A focus on impact analysis will help translate melanoma risk prediction rules into useful tools for clinical practice.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Decision Support Techniques; Humans; Melanoma; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 28264830
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014096 -
Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare Feb 2018Background The use of teledermoscopy in the diagnostic management of pre-cancerous and cancerous skin lesions involves digital dermoscopic images transmitted over... (Review)
Review
Background The use of teledermoscopy in the diagnostic management of pre-cancerous and cancerous skin lesions involves digital dermoscopic images transmitted over telecommunication networks via email or web applications. Teledermoscopy may improve the accuracy in clinical diagnoses of melanoma skin cancer if integrated into electronic medical records and made available to rural communities, potentially leading to decreased morbidity and mortality. Objective and method The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic review of evidence on the use of teledermoscopy to improve the accuracy of skin lesion identification in adult populations. The PRISMA method guided the development of this systematic review. A total of seven scholarly databases were searched for articles published between the years of 2000 and 2015. All studies were critically appraised using the Rosswurm and Larrabee critique worksheet, placed in a matrix for comparison evaluating internal and external validity and inspected for homogeneity of findings. Results Sixteen articles met inclusion criteria for this review. A majority of the studies were cross-sectional and non-experimental. Ten of the 16 focused on interobserver concordance and diagnostic agreement between teledermoscopy and another comparator. Instrumentation in conducting the studies showed inconsistency with reported results. Discussion Higher level evidence is needed to support clinical application of teledermoscopy for accuracy of diagnostic measurement in the treatment of pre-cancerous and cancerous skin lesions in adults. Future research is needed to develop a standardized, reliable and valid measurement tool for implementation in clinical practice.
Topics: Cross-Sectional Studies; Dermoscopy; Diagnosis, Differential; Electronic Health Records; Humans; Observer Variation; Rural Health Services; Skin Diseases; Telemedicine
PubMed: 28056600
DOI: 10.1177/1357633X16686770 -
Health Technology Assessment... Jul 2016Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with suspicious skin lesions are first examined with a dermoscope. After examination, those with non-cancerous lesions are discharged, but lesions that are still considered clinically suspicious are surgically removed. VivaScope(®) is a non-invasive technology designed to be used in conjunction with dermoscopy to provide a more accurate diagnosis, leading to fewer biopsies of benign lesions or to provide more accurate presurgical margins reducing the risk of cancer recurrence.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VivaScope(®) 1500 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA; Lucid Inc., Rochester, NY, USA; or Lucid Inc., MAVIG GmbH, Munich, Germany) and VivaScope(®) 3000 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA) in the diagnosis of equivocal skin lesions, and VivaScope 3000 in lesion margin delineation prior to surgical excision of lesions.
DATA SOURCES
Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched on 14 October 2014, reference lists of included papers were assessed and clinical experts were contacted for additional information on published and unpublished studies.
METHODS
A systematic review was carried out to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies evaluating dermoscopy plus VivaScope, or VivaScope alone, with histopathology as the reference test. A probabilistic de novo economic model was developed to synthesise the available data on costs and clinical outcomes from the UK NHS perspective. All costs were expressed as 2014 prices.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies were included in the review, but they were too heterogeneous to be combined in a meta-analysis. One of two diagnostic studies that were deemed most representative of UK clinical practice reported that dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 was significantly more sensitive than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of melanoma (97.8% vs. 94.6%; p = 0.043) and significantly more specific than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of non-melanoma (92.4% vs. 26.74%; p < 0.000001). The results of another study suggest 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.16% to 100%] sensitivity for dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 versus 100% (95% CI 91.51% to 100%) for dermoscopy alone. Specificity varied from 51.77% to 80.2% depending on the analysis set used. In terms of margin delineation with VivaScope, one study found that 17 out of 29 patients with visible lentigo maligna (LM) had subclinical disease of > 5 mm beyond the dermoscopically identified margin. Using 'optimistic' diagnostic data, the economic model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8877 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (£9362 per QALY), while the 'less favourable' diagnostic data resulted in an ICER of £19,095 per QALY (£25,453 per QALY) in the diagnosis of suspected melanomas. VivaScope was also shown to be a dominant strategy when used for the diagnostic assessment of suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Regarding margin delineation of LM, mapping with VivaScope was cost-effective, with an ICER of £10,241 per QALY (£11,651 per QALY). However, when VivaScope was used for diagnosis as well as mapping of LM, then the intervention cost was reduced and VivaScope became a dominant strategy.
LIMITATIONS
There is an absence of UK data in the included studies and, therefore, generalisability of the results to the UK population is unclear.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of VivaScope appears to be a cost-effective strategy in the diagnostic assessment of equivocal melanomas and BCCs, and in margin delineation of LM prior to surgical treatment.
FUTURE WORK
High-quality RCTs are required in a UK population to assess the diagnostic accuracy of VivaScope in people with equivocal lesions.
STUDY REGISTRATION
This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014433.
FUNDING
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Topics: Carcinoma, Basal Cell; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Dermoscopy; Germany; Humans; Melanoma; Microscopy, Confocal; Models, Econometric; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sensitivity and Specificity; Skin Diseases; Skin Neoplasms; Technology Assessment, Biomedical
PubMed: 27483991
DOI: 10.3310/hta20580 -
Dermatology Practical & Conceptual 2013Melanoma is a cancer of the skin and is increasing in incidence in the UK and Europe. Melanoma is a condition that is often curable if detected at an early stage, which...
BACKGROUND
Melanoma is a cancer of the skin and is increasing in incidence in the UK and Europe. Melanoma is a condition that is often curable if detected at an early stage, which makes accurate diagnosis vital. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a tool used to image the skin. It gives high magnification images of the skin, which may provide more accurate diagnosis of lesions that are equivocal on clinical examination and dermoscopy.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), for melanoma diagnosis, as an add-on test to clinical examination and dermoscopy in the diagnosis of equivocal pigmented skin lesions using histopathology as the reference standard.
METHODS
A search was conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE and six other electronic databases from inception to present. Forward citation searching and hand searching of reference lists were also conducted. Diagnostic accuracy studies that assess RCM in the diagnosis of melanoma were included in the review. Two contributors conducted the search, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality using QUADAS-2. Statistical analysis was performed using hierarchical bivariate random effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
951 titles and abstracts were screened. Five studies comprising 909 lesions were eligible for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis returned a per lesion sensitivity of 93% [95% CI 89-96] and a specificity of 76% [95% CI 68-83].
CONCLUSIONS
The utility of reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) as an add-on test for the diagnosis of melanoma depends on the trade off between over-excising benign lesions and misdiagnosing melanoma as benign. This becomes important when considering lesions on surgically difficult or cosmetically important areas of the body.
PubMed: 24282659
DOI: 10.5826/dpc.0304a05