BACKGROUND: Computerized analysis of pigmented skin lesions may help to increase diagnostic accuracy for melanoma, help to avoid unnecessary procedures and reduce health care costs. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated both the patient acceptance and diagnostic utility of such an analysis tool in a real clinical setting. METHODS: Two hundred nine consecutive patients (median age: 34 years, range: 2-73 years), who were concerned about a pigmented skin lesion, answered a questionnaire about their attitude towards computerized analysis and their confidence in the resulting findings. Using a dermoscopy analyser, their skin lesions (n = 219) were then grouped into the categories, benign, suspicious and malignant, and results were compared with those obtained by in-person examination of dermato-oncologic experts. RESULTS: More than half of the patients (n = 114) would accept the use of computer analysis for melanoma screening; although 16 (14.0%) patients would accept this method solely, 98 (86.0%) patients would prefer an additional in-person examination by a dermatologist. Of the 219 pigmented skin lesions, the dermoscopic experts rated 171 (78.1%) as benign, 36 (16.4%) as suspicious and 12 (5.5%) as malignant, whereas computer analysis revealed 102 (46.6%) benign, 78 (35.6%) suspicious and 39 (17.8%) malignant lesions. At the expense of specificity (48.8%), the sensitivity of computerized analysis was excellent (100%) and equal to that of in-person examination. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients would accept computer analysis for melanoma screening, some of them even without reservations. However, due to a high rate of false positive computer assessments, it cannot be recommended as a screening tool at this time.
BACKGROUND: Computerized analysis of pigmented skin lesions may help to increase diagnostic accuracy for melanoma, help to avoid unnecessary procedures and reduce health care costs. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated both the patient acceptance and diagnostic utility of such an analysis tool in a real clinical setting. METHODS: Two hundred nine consecutive patients (median age: 34 years, range: 2-73 years), who were concerned about a pigmented skin lesion, answered a questionnaire about their attitude towards computerized analysis and their confidence in the resulting findings. Using a dermoscopy analyser, their skin lesions (n = 219) were then grouped into the categories, benign, suspicious and malignant, and results were compared with those obtained by in-person examination of dermato-oncologic experts. RESULTS: More than half of the patients (n = 114) would accept the use of computer analysis for melanoma screening; although 16 (14.0%) patients would accept this method solely, 98 (86.0%) patients would prefer an additional in-person examination by a dermatologist. Of the 219 pigmented skin lesions, the dermoscopic experts rated 171 (78.1%) as benign, 36 (16.4%) as suspicious and 12 (5.5%) as malignant, whereas computer analysis revealed 102 (46.6%) benign, 78 (35.6%) suspicious and 39 (17.8%) malignant lesions. At the expense of specificity (48.8%), the sensitivity of computerized analysis was excellent (100%) and equal to that of in-person examination. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients would accept computer analysis for melanoma screening, some of them even without reservations. However, due to a high rate of false positive computer assessments, it cannot be recommended as a screening tool at this time.
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Naomi Chuchu; Rubeta N Matin; Kai Yuen Wong; Roger Benjamin Aldridge; Alana Durack; Abha Gulati; Sue Ann Chan; Louise Johnston; Susan E Bayliss; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Yemisi Takwoingi; Clare Davenport; Colette O'Sullivan; Hamid Tehrani; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Naomi Chuchu; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Rubeta N Matin; David R Thomson; Kai Yuen Wong; Roger Benjamin Aldridge; Rachel Abbott; Monica Fawzy; Susan E Bayliss; Matthew J Grainge; Yemisi Takwoingi; Clare Davenport; Kathie Godfrey; Fiona M Walter; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Yemisi Takwoingi; Jacqueline Dinnes; Naomi Chuchu; Susan E Bayliss; Clare Davenport; Rubeta N Matin; Kathie Godfrey; Colette O'Sullivan; Abha Gulati; Sue Ann Chan; Alana Durack; Susan O'Connell; Matthew D Gardiner; Jeffrey Bamber; Jonathan J Deeks; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Kajsa Møllersen; Herbert Kirchesch; Maciel Zortea; Thomas R Schopf; Kristian Hindberg; Fred Godtliebsen Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-11-26 Impact factor: 3.411