The use of noninvasive imaging techniques in the diagnosis of melanoma: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study
Early detection of melanoma is crucial to improving the detection of thin curable melanomas. Noninvasive, computer-assisted methods have been developed to use at the bedside to aid in diagnoses but have not been compared directly in a clinical setting. We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2021-08, Vol.85 (2), p.353-359 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 359 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 353 |
container_title | Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology |
container_volume | 85 |
creator | MacLellan, A. Nikolas Price, Emma L. Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela Matheson, Kara Ly, Thai Yen Pasternak, Sylvia Walsh, Noreen M. Gallant, Christopher J. Oakley, Amanda Hull, Peter R. Langley, Richard G. |
description | Early detection of melanoma is crucial to improving the detection of thin curable melanomas. Noninvasive, computer-assisted methods have been developed to use at the bedside to aid in diagnoses but have not been compared directly in a clinical setting.
We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing a dermatologist's clinical examination at the bedside, teledermatology, and noninvasive imaging techniques (FotoFinder, MelaFind, and Verisante Aura).
A total of 184 patients were recruited prospectively from an outpatient dermatology clinic, with lesions imaged, assessed, and excised. Skin specimens were assessed by 2 blinded pathologists, providing the gold standard comparison.
Fifty-nine lesions from 56 patients had a histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma, whereas 150 lesions from 128 patients were diagnosed as benign. Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, MelaFind (82.5%, 52.4%), Verisante Aura (21.4%, 86.2%), and FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro (88.1%, 78.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of the teledermoscopist (84.5% and 82.6%, respectively) and local dermatologist (96.6% and 32.2%, respectively) were also compared.
There are inherent limitations in using pathology as the gold standard to compare sensitivities and specificities.
This study demonstrates that the highest sensitivity and specificity of the instruments were established with the FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro, which could be a valuable tool to assist with, but not replace, clinical decision making. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.019 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2390146394</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0190962220305594</els_id><sourcerecordid>2390146394</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9f40106e24019f2357baf94bc3fc587fd427c2436cb2ab4eb3d20170a1a543aa3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsFb_gKtZukm882jSiBsRX1BwU9fDzeSmndBMaiYp9N87oV27ujCcbzjnY-xeQCpAZI9N2iBWqQQJKegURHHBZgKKPMnyZX7JZvEFkiKT8prdhNAAQKFVPmPdekt8DMS7mvvOO3_A4A7EXYsb5zd8ILv17nekwJ3nQwxXDje-Cy5MSEs79F2LTxz5vu_Cnuww4efQ4CxHa8ce7ZGHYayOt-yqxl2gu_Ods5_3t_XrZ7L6_vh6fVklVik1JEWtQUBGMp6ilmqRl1gXurSqtotlXlda5lZqldlSYqmpVJUEkQMKXGiFqObs4fRvbDW1H0zrgqVdrEvdGIxUBQidqWhhzuQpauOA0FNt9n2c3x-NADPZNY2Z7JrJrgFtYqUIPZ8giiMOjnoTrCNvqXJ9dGCqzv2H_wFcPYS6</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2390146394</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The use of noninvasive imaging techniques in the diagnosis of melanoma: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>MacLellan, A. Nikolas ; Price, Emma L. ; Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela ; Matheson, Kara ; Ly, Thai Yen ; Pasternak, Sylvia ; Walsh, Noreen M. ; Gallant, Christopher J. ; Oakley, Amanda ; Hull, Peter R. ; Langley, Richard G.</creator><creatorcontrib>MacLellan, A. Nikolas ; Price, Emma L. ; Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela ; Matheson, Kara ; Ly, Thai Yen ; Pasternak, Sylvia ; Walsh, Noreen M. ; Gallant, Christopher J. ; Oakley, Amanda ; Hull, Peter R. ; Langley, Richard G.</creatorcontrib><description>Early detection of melanoma is crucial to improving the detection of thin curable melanomas. Noninvasive, computer-assisted methods have been developed to use at the bedside to aid in diagnoses but have not been compared directly in a clinical setting.
We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing a dermatologist's clinical examination at the bedside, teledermatology, and noninvasive imaging techniques (FotoFinder, MelaFind, and Verisante Aura).
A total of 184 patients were recruited prospectively from an outpatient dermatology clinic, with lesions imaged, assessed, and excised. Skin specimens were assessed by 2 blinded pathologists, providing the gold standard comparison.
Fifty-nine lesions from 56 patients had a histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma, whereas 150 lesions from 128 patients were diagnosed as benign. Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, MelaFind (82.5%, 52.4%), Verisante Aura (21.4%, 86.2%), and FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro (88.1%, 78.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of the teledermoscopist (84.5% and 82.6%, respectively) and local dermatologist (96.6% and 32.2%, respectively) were also compared.
There are inherent limitations in using pathology as the gold standard to compare sensitivities and specificities.
This study demonstrates that the highest sensitivity and specificity of the instruments were established with the FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro, which could be a valuable tool to assist with, but not replace, clinical decision making.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0190-9622</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6787</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.019</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>artificial intelligence ; atypical melanocytic nevi ; dermoscopy ; FotoFinder ; MelaFind ; melanoma ; teledermoscopy ; Verisante Aura</subject><ispartof>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2021-08, Vol.85 (2), p.353-359</ispartof><rights>2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9f40106e24019f2357baf94bc3fc587fd427c2436cb2ab4eb3d20170a1a543aa3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9f40106e24019f2357baf94bc3fc587fd427c2436cb2ab4eb3d20170a1a543aa3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190962220305594$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27903,27904,65308</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>MacLellan, A. Nikolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Emma L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matheson, Kara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ly, Thai Yen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasternak, Sylvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Noreen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gallant, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oakley, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hull, Peter R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langley, Richard G.</creatorcontrib><title>The use of noninvasive imaging techniques in the diagnosis of melanoma: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study</title><title>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology</title><description>Early detection of melanoma is crucial to improving the detection of thin curable melanomas. Noninvasive, computer-assisted methods have been developed to use at the bedside to aid in diagnoses but have not been compared directly in a clinical setting.
We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing a dermatologist's clinical examination at the bedside, teledermatology, and noninvasive imaging techniques (FotoFinder, MelaFind, and Verisante Aura).
A total of 184 patients were recruited prospectively from an outpatient dermatology clinic, with lesions imaged, assessed, and excised. Skin specimens were assessed by 2 blinded pathologists, providing the gold standard comparison.
Fifty-nine lesions from 56 patients had a histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma, whereas 150 lesions from 128 patients were diagnosed as benign. Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, MelaFind (82.5%, 52.4%), Verisante Aura (21.4%, 86.2%), and FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro (88.1%, 78.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of the teledermoscopist (84.5% and 82.6%, respectively) and local dermatologist (96.6% and 32.2%, respectively) were also compared.
There are inherent limitations in using pathology as the gold standard to compare sensitivities and specificities.
This study demonstrates that the highest sensitivity and specificity of the instruments were established with the FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro, which could be a valuable tool to assist with, but not replace, clinical decision making.</description><subject>artificial intelligence</subject><subject>atypical melanocytic nevi</subject><subject>dermoscopy</subject><subject>FotoFinder</subject><subject>MelaFind</subject><subject>melanoma</subject><subject>teledermoscopy</subject><subject>Verisante Aura</subject><issn>0190-9622</issn><issn>1097-6787</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kEtLw0AUhQdRsFb_gKtZukm882jSiBsRX1BwU9fDzeSmndBMaiYp9N87oV27ujCcbzjnY-xeQCpAZI9N2iBWqQQJKegURHHBZgKKPMnyZX7JZvEFkiKT8prdhNAAQKFVPmPdekt8DMS7mvvOO3_A4A7EXYsb5zd8ILv17nekwJ3nQwxXDje-Cy5MSEs79F2LTxz5vu_Cnuww4efQ4CxHa8ce7ZGHYayOt-yqxl2gu_Ods5_3t_XrZ7L6_vh6fVklVik1JEWtQUBGMp6ilmqRl1gXurSqtotlXlda5lZqldlSYqmpVJUEkQMKXGiFqObs4fRvbDW1H0zrgqVdrEvdGIxUBQidqWhhzuQpauOA0FNt9n2c3x-NADPZNY2Z7JrJrgFtYqUIPZ8giiMOjnoTrCNvqXJ9dGCqzv2H_wFcPYS6</recordid><startdate>202108</startdate><enddate>202108</enddate><creator>MacLellan, A. Nikolas</creator><creator>Price, Emma L.</creator><creator>Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela</creator><creator>Matheson, Kara</creator><creator>Ly, Thai Yen</creator><creator>Pasternak, Sylvia</creator><creator>Walsh, Noreen M.</creator><creator>Gallant, Christopher J.</creator><creator>Oakley, Amanda</creator><creator>Hull, Peter R.</creator><creator>Langley, Richard G.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202108</creationdate><title>The use of noninvasive imaging techniques in the diagnosis of melanoma: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study</title><author>MacLellan, A. Nikolas ; Price, Emma L. ; Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela ; Matheson, Kara ; Ly, Thai Yen ; Pasternak, Sylvia ; Walsh, Noreen M. ; Gallant, Christopher J. ; Oakley, Amanda ; Hull, Peter R. ; Langley, Richard G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-9f40106e24019f2357baf94bc3fc587fd427c2436cb2ab4eb3d20170a1a543aa3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>artificial intelligence</topic><topic>atypical melanocytic nevi</topic><topic>dermoscopy</topic><topic>FotoFinder</topic><topic>MelaFind</topic><topic>melanoma</topic><topic>teledermoscopy</topic><topic>Verisante Aura</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MacLellan, A. Nikolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Price, Emma L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Matheson, Kara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ly, Thai Yen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pasternak, Sylvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walsh, Noreen M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gallant, Christopher J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oakley, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hull, Peter R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Langley, Richard G.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MacLellan, A. Nikolas</au><au>Price, Emma L.</au><au>Publicover-Brouwer, Pamela</au><au>Matheson, Kara</au><au>Ly, Thai Yen</au><au>Pasternak, Sylvia</au><au>Walsh, Noreen M.</au><au>Gallant, Christopher J.</au><au>Oakley, Amanda</au><au>Hull, Peter R.</au><au>Langley, Richard G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The use of noninvasive imaging techniques in the diagnosis of melanoma: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology</jtitle><date>2021-08</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>353</spage><epage>359</epage><pages>353-359</pages><issn>0190-9622</issn><eissn>1097-6787</eissn><abstract>Early detection of melanoma is crucial to improving the detection of thin curable melanomas. Noninvasive, computer-assisted methods have been developed to use at the bedside to aid in diagnoses but have not been compared directly in a clinical setting.
We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing a dermatologist's clinical examination at the bedside, teledermatology, and noninvasive imaging techniques (FotoFinder, MelaFind, and Verisante Aura).
A total of 184 patients were recruited prospectively from an outpatient dermatology clinic, with lesions imaged, assessed, and excised. Skin specimens were assessed by 2 blinded pathologists, providing the gold standard comparison.
Fifty-nine lesions from 56 patients had a histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma, whereas 150 lesions from 128 patients were diagnosed as benign. Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, MelaFind (82.5%, 52.4%), Verisante Aura (21.4%, 86.2%), and FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro (88.1%, 78.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of the teledermoscopist (84.5% and 82.6%, respectively) and local dermatologist (96.6% and 32.2%, respectively) were also compared.
There are inherent limitations in using pathology as the gold standard to compare sensitivities and specificities.
This study demonstrates that the highest sensitivity and specificity of the instruments were established with the FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro, which could be a valuable tool to assist with, but not replace, clinical decision making.</abstract><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><doi>10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.019</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0190-9622 |
ispartof | Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2021-08, Vol.85 (2), p.353-359 |
issn | 0190-9622 1097-6787 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2390146394 |
source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | artificial intelligence atypical melanocytic nevi dermoscopy FotoFinder MelaFind melanoma teledermoscopy Verisante Aura |
title | The use of noninvasive imaging techniques in the diagnosis of melanoma: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-28T09%3A50%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20use%20of%20noninvasive%20imaging%20techniques%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20melanoma:%20a%20prospective%20diagnostic%20accuracy%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20the%20American%20Academy%20of%20Dermatology&rft.au=MacLellan,%20A.%20Nikolas&rft.date=2021-08&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=353&rft.epage=359&rft.pages=353-359&rft.issn=0190-9622&rft.eissn=1097-6787&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.04.019&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2390146394%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2390146394&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0190962220305594&rfr_iscdi=true |