Evaluation of diagnostic criteria of actinic keratosis through reflectance confocal microscopy

Background The diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) is based on clinical evaluation and confirmed by histopathological analysis (HA). The challenge is to establish the correct diagnosis with a minimally invasive assessment. The aim of this study is to validate the analysis of AK by reflectance confoc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Skin research and technology 2020-11, Vol.26 (6), p.883-890
Hauptverfasser: Mota, Amanda, Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel, Barcaui, Carlos
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 890
container_issue 6
container_start_page 883
container_title Skin research and technology
container_volume 26
creator Mota, Amanda
Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel
Barcaui, Carlos
description Background The diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) is based on clinical evaluation and confirmed by histopathological analysis (HA). The challenge is to establish the correct diagnosis with a minimally invasive assessment. The aim of this study is to validate the analysis of AK by reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), a cellular resolution, noninvasive imaging method and to determine the relevant parameters for diagnosis, compared to HA, by calculating the sensitivity (S), specificity (E), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each criterion. Materials and methods Through clinical examination, 25 AKs were selected for dermoscopy and RCM evaluation followed by shaving excision for HA. Statistical analysis was done by hypothesis tests (McNemar for binary and Wilcoxon for continuous variables). Results There was no significant difference between RCM and HA for 5 of the 6 parameters analyzed. The criteria that were statistically relevant were as follows: parakeratosis (p‐value 0.449690; S 90%; PPV 78.26%), hyperkeratosis (p‐value 0.248213; S 87.5%; E 100%; PPV 100%; NPV 25%), dyskeratosis (p‐value 0.617075; S 85.71%; E 75%; PPV 94.74%; NPV 50%), spinous layer keratinocyte atypia classified as mild, moderate or severe (P‐value 0.145032) and inflammation in epidermis (P‐value 1.000000; S 75%; E 20%; PPV 78.95%; NPV 16.67%). RCM could not adequately measure inflammation in dermis (P‐value 0.013328), despite good sensitivity (68%) and PPV (100%). Conclusion RCM proved to be an effective method for the diagnosis of AK, contributing to the selection of the most appropriate treatment option.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/srt.12890
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2418129932</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2464340400</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3300-6c5e58a947b3203febda03c10c0034c55d37cfacca621708440326db924ae0713</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1Lw0AQhhdRsFYP_oOAFz2knf1I0hyl1A8QBK3gyWU72bRb02zd3Sj9926NJ8G5DAzPzLzvS8g5hRGNNfYujCiblHBABjQHSGEi8kMygBLKtMjY6zE58X4NAFlJ-YC8zT5V06lgbJvYOqmMWrbWB4MJOhO0M2o_VhhMG2fv2qlgvfFJWDnbLVeJ03WjMagWdYK2rS2qJtkYdNaj3e5OyVGtGq_PfvuQvNzM5tO79OHx9n56_ZAi51FkjpnOJqoUxYIz4LVeVAo4UkAALjDLKl5grRBVzmgRLQngLK8WJRNKQ0H5kFz2d7fOfnTaB7kxHnXTqFbbzksm6ISysuQsohd_0LXtXBvVRSoXXICIT4fkqqf2Tnx0KbfObJTbSQpyn7SMScufpCM77tkv0-jd_6B8fpr3G993yYBs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2464340400</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of diagnostic criteria of actinic keratosis through reflectance confocal microscopy</title><source>Wiley Online Library Open Access</source><creator>Mota, Amanda ; Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel ; Barcaui, Carlos</creator><creatorcontrib>Mota, Amanda ; Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel ; Barcaui, Carlos</creatorcontrib><description>Background The diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) is based on clinical evaluation and confirmed by histopathological analysis (HA). The challenge is to establish the correct diagnosis with a minimally invasive assessment. The aim of this study is to validate the analysis of AK by reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), a cellular resolution, noninvasive imaging method and to determine the relevant parameters for diagnosis, compared to HA, by calculating the sensitivity (S), specificity (E), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each criterion. Materials and methods Through clinical examination, 25 AKs were selected for dermoscopy and RCM evaluation followed by shaving excision for HA. Statistical analysis was done by hypothesis tests (McNemar for binary and Wilcoxon for continuous variables). Results There was no significant difference between RCM and HA for 5 of the 6 parameters analyzed. The criteria that were statistically relevant were as follows: parakeratosis (p‐value 0.449690; S 90%; PPV 78.26%), hyperkeratosis (p‐value 0.248213; S 87.5%; E 100%; PPV 100%; NPV 25%), dyskeratosis (p‐value 0.617075; S 85.71%; E 75%; PPV 94.74%; NPV 50%), spinous layer keratinocyte atypia classified as mild, moderate or severe (P‐value 0.145032) and inflammation in epidermis (P‐value 1.000000; S 75%; E 20%; PPV 78.95%; NPV 16.67%). RCM could not adequately measure inflammation in dermis (P‐value 0.013328), despite good sensitivity (68%) and PPV (100%). Conclusion RCM proved to be an effective method for the diagnosis of AK, contributing to the selection of the most appropriate treatment option.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0909-752X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0846</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/srt.12890</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Copenhagen: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Confocal microscopy ; Continuity (mathematics) ; Criteria ; Dermis ; dermoscopy ; Diagnosis ; Diagnostic systems ; Dyskeratosis ; Epidermis ; Evaluation ; histopathology ; imaging diagnosis ; Keratosis ; Mathematical analysis ; Microscopy ; noninvasive diagnosis ; nonmelanoma skin cancer ; Parameter sensitivity ; Reflectance ; Sensitivity ; Skin cancer ; skin cancer prevention ; skin neoplasm ; Statistical analysis</subject><ispartof>Skin research and technology, 2020-11, Vol.26 (6), p.883-890</ispartof><rights>2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3300-6c5e58a947b3203febda03c10c0034c55d37cfacca621708440326db924ae0713</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3300-6c5e58a947b3203febda03c10c0034c55d37cfacca621708440326db924ae0713</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8021-2374 ; 0000-0003-2375-027X ; 0000-0002-3303-3656</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fsrt.12890$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fsrt.12890$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,11542,27903,27904,45553,45554,46030,46454</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fsrt.12890$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mota, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barcaui, Carlos</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of diagnostic criteria of actinic keratosis through reflectance confocal microscopy</title><title>Skin research and technology</title><description>Background The diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) is based on clinical evaluation and confirmed by histopathological analysis (HA). The challenge is to establish the correct diagnosis with a minimally invasive assessment. The aim of this study is to validate the analysis of AK by reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), a cellular resolution, noninvasive imaging method and to determine the relevant parameters for diagnosis, compared to HA, by calculating the sensitivity (S), specificity (E), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each criterion. Materials and methods Through clinical examination, 25 AKs were selected for dermoscopy and RCM evaluation followed by shaving excision for HA. Statistical analysis was done by hypothesis tests (McNemar for binary and Wilcoxon for continuous variables). Results There was no significant difference between RCM and HA for 5 of the 6 parameters analyzed. The criteria that were statistically relevant were as follows: parakeratosis (p‐value 0.449690; S 90%; PPV 78.26%), hyperkeratosis (p‐value 0.248213; S 87.5%; E 100%; PPV 100%; NPV 25%), dyskeratosis (p‐value 0.617075; S 85.71%; E 75%; PPV 94.74%; NPV 50%), spinous layer keratinocyte atypia classified as mild, moderate or severe (P‐value 0.145032) and inflammation in epidermis (P‐value 1.000000; S 75%; E 20%; PPV 78.95%; NPV 16.67%). RCM could not adequately measure inflammation in dermis (P‐value 0.013328), despite good sensitivity (68%) and PPV (100%). Conclusion RCM proved to be an effective method for the diagnosis of AK, contributing to the selection of the most appropriate treatment option.</description><subject>Confocal microscopy</subject><subject>Continuity (mathematics)</subject><subject>Criteria</subject><subject>Dermis</subject><subject>dermoscopy</subject><subject>Diagnosis</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Dyskeratosis</subject><subject>Epidermis</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>histopathology</subject><subject>imaging diagnosis</subject><subject>Keratosis</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Microscopy</subject><subject>noninvasive diagnosis</subject><subject>nonmelanoma skin cancer</subject><subject>Parameter sensitivity</subject><subject>Reflectance</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Skin cancer</subject><subject>skin cancer prevention</subject><subject>skin neoplasm</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><issn>0909-752X</issn><issn>1600-0846</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1Lw0AQhhdRsFYP_oOAFz2knf1I0hyl1A8QBK3gyWU72bRb02zd3Sj9926NJ8G5DAzPzLzvS8g5hRGNNfYujCiblHBABjQHSGEi8kMygBLKtMjY6zE58X4NAFlJ-YC8zT5V06lgbJvYOqmMWrbWB4MJOhO0M2o_VhhMG2fv2qlgvfFJWDnbLVeJ03WjMagWdYK2rS2qJtkYdNaj3e5OyVGtGq_PfvuQvNzM5tO79OHx9n56_ZAi51FkjpnOJqoUxYIz4LVeVAo4UkAALjDLKl5grRBVzmgRLQngLK8WJRNKQ0H5kFz2d7fOfnTaB7kxHnXTqFbbzksm6ISysuQsohd_0LXtXBvVRSoXXICIT4fkqqf2Tnx0KbfObJTbSQpyn7SMScufpCM77tkv0-jd_6B8fpr3G993yYBs</recordid><startdate>202011</startdate><enddate>202011</enddate><creator>Mota, Amanda</creator><creator>Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel</creator><creator>Barcaui, Carlos</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8021-2374</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2375-027X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3303-3656</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202011</creationdate><title>Evaluation of diagnostic criteria of actinic keratosis through reflectance confocal microscopy</title><author>Mota, Amanda ; Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel ; Barcaui, Carlos</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3300-6c5e58a947b3203febda03c10c0034c55d37cfacca621708440326db924ae0713</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Confocal microscopy</topic><topic>Continuity (mathematics)</topic><topic>Criteria</topic><topic>Dermis</topic><topic>dermoscopy</topic><topic>Diagnosis</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Dyskeratosis</topic><topic>Epidermis</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>histopathology</topic><topic>imaging diagnosis</topic><topic>Keratosis</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Microscopy</topic><topic>noninvasive diagnosis</topic><topic>nonmelanoma skin cancer</topic><topic>Parameter sensitivity</topic><topic>Reflectance</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Skin cancer</topic><topic>skin cancer prevention</topic><topic>skin neoplasm</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mota, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Barcaui, Carlos</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Skin research and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mota, Amanda</au><au>Piñeiro‐Maceira, Juan Manuel</au><au>Barcaui, Carlos</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of diagnostic criteria of actinic keratosis through reflectance confocal microscopy</atitle><jtitle>Skin research and technology</jtitle><date>2020-11</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>883</spage><epage>890</epage><pages>883-890</pages><issn>0909-752X</issn><eissn>1600-0846</eissn><abstract>Background The diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) is based on clinical evaluation and confirmed by histopathological analysis (HA). The challenge is to establish the correct diagnosis with a minimally invasive assessment. The aim of this study is to validate the analysis of AK by reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), a cellular resolution, noninvasive imaging method and to determine the relevant parameters for diagnosis, compared to HA, by calculating the sensitivity (S), specificity (E), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of each criterion. Materials and methods Through clinical examination, 25 AKs were selected for dermoscopy and RCM evaluation followed by shaving excision for HA. Statistical analysis was done by hypothesis tests (McNemar for binary and Wilcoxon for continuous variables). Results There was no significant difference between RCM and HA for 5 of the 6 parameters analyzed. The criteria that were statistically relevant were as follows: parakeratosis (p‐value 0.449690; S 90%; PPV 78.26%), hyperkeratosis (p‐value 0.248213; S 87.5%; E 100%; PPV 100%; NPV 25%), dyskeratosis (p‐value 0.617075; S 85.71%; E 75%; PPV 94.74%; NPV 50%), spinous layer keratinocyte atypia classified as mild, moderate or severe (P‐value 0.145032) and inflammation in epidermis (P‐value 1.000000; S 75%; E 20%; PPV 78.95%; NPV 16.67%). RCM could not adequately measure inflammation in dermis (P‐value 0.013328), despite good sensitivity (68%) and PPV (100%). Conclusion RCM proved to be an effective method for the diagnosis of AK, contributing to the selection of the most appropriate treatment option.</abstract><cop>Copenhagen</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/srt.12890</doi><tpages>8</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8021-2374</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2375-027X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3303-3656</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier ISSN: 0909-752X
ispartof Skin research and technology, 2020-11, Vol.26 (6), p.883-890
issn 0909-752X
1600-0846
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2418129932
source Wiley Online Library Open Access
subjects Confocal microscopy
Continuity (mathematics)
Criteria
Dermis
dermoscopy
Diagnosis
Diagnostic systems
Dyskeratosis
Epidermis
Evaluation
histopathology
imaging diagnosis
Keratosis
Mathematical analysis
Microscopy
noninvasive diagnosis
nonmelanoma skin cancer
Parameter sensitivity
Reflectance
Sensitivity
Skin cancer
skin cancer prevention
skin neoplasm
Statistical analysis
title Evaluation of diagnostic criteria of actinic keratosis through reflectance confocal microscopy
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T06%3A37%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20diagnostic%20criteria%20of%20actinic%20keratosis%20through%20reflectance%20confocal%20microscopy&rft.jtitle=Skin%20research%20and%20technology&rft.au=Mota,%20Amanda&rft.date=2020-11&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=883&rft.epage=890&rft.pages=883-890&rft.issn=0909-752X&rft.eissn=1600-0846&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/srt.12890&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E2464340400%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2464340400&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true