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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Skin research and technology 2020-11, Vol.26 (6), p.883-890 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |