Erin M Warshaw1, Amy A Gravely2, David B Nelson3. 1. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Electronic address: erin.warshaw@va.gov. 2. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota School of Medicine, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teledermatology may be less optimal for skin neoplasms than for rashes. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine agreement for skin neoplasms. METHODS: This was a repeated measures study. Each lesion was examined by a clinic dermatologist and a teledermatologist; both generated a primary diagnosis, up to 2 differential diagnoses, and management. Macro images and polarized light dermoscopy images were obtained; for pigmented lesions only, contact immersion dermoscopy image was obtained. RESULTS: There were 3021 lesions in 2152 patients. Of 1685 biopsied lesions, there were 410 basal cell carcinomas (24%), 240 squamous cell carcinomas (14%), and 41 melanomas (2.4%). Agreement was fair to substantial for primary diagnosis (45.7%-80.1%; kappa 0.32-0.62), substantial to almost perfect for aggregated diagnoses (primary plus differential; 78.6%-93.9%; kappa 0.77-0.90), and fair for management (66.7%-86.1%; kappa 0.28-0.41). Diagnostic agreement rates were higher for pigmented lesions (52.8%-93.9%; kappa 0.44-0.90) than nonpigmented lesions (47.7%-87.3%; kappa 0.32-0.86), whereas the reverse was found for management agreement (pigmented: 66.7%-79.8%, kappa 0.19-0.35 vs nonpigmented: 72.0%-86.1%, kappa 0.38-0.41). Agreement rates using macro images were similar to polarized light dermoscopy; contact immersion dermoscopy, however, significantly improved rates for pigmented lesions. LIMITATIONS: We studied a homogeneous population. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic agreement was moderate to almost perfect whereas management agreement was fair. Polarized light dermoscopy increased rates modestly whereas contact immersion dermoscopy significantly increased rates for pigmented lesions. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Teledermatology may be less optimal for skin neoplasms than for rashes. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine agreement for skin neoplasms. METHODS: This was a repeated measures study. Each lesion was examined by a clinic dermatologist and a teledermatologist; both generated a primary diagnosis, up to 2 differential diagnoses, and management. Macro images and polarized light dermoscopy images were obtained; for pigmented lesions only, contact immersion dermoscopy image was obtained. RESULTS: There were 3021 lesions in 2152 patients. Of 1685 biopsied lesions, there were 410 basal cell carcinomas (24%), 240 squamous cell carcinomas (14%), and 41 melanomas (2.4%). Agreement was fair to substantial for primary diagnosis (45.7%-80.1%; kappa 0.32-0.62), substantial to almost perfect for aggregated diagnoses (primary plus differential; 78.6%-93.9%; kappa 0.77-0.90), and fair for management (66.7%-86.1%; kappa 0.28-0.41). Diagnostic agreement rates were higher for pigmented lesions (52.8%-93.9%; kappa 0.44-0.90) than nonpigmented lesions (47.7%-87.3%; kappa 0.32-0.86), whereas the reverse was found for management agreement (pigmented: 66.7%-79.8%, kappa 0.19-0.35 vs nonpigmented: 72.0%-86.1%, kappa 0.38-0.41). Agreement rates using macro images were similar to polarized light dermoscopy; contact immersion dermoscopy, however, significantly improved rates for pigmented lesions. LIMITATIONS: We studied a homogeneous population. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic agreement was moderate to almost perfect whereas management agreement was fair. Polarized light dermoscopy increased rates modestly whereas contact immersion dermoscopy significantly increased rates for pigmented lesions. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Collin M Costello; Helen J L Cumsky; Connor J Maly; Jamison A Harvey; Matthew R Buras; Peter J Pallagi; Anna L Gustaveson; Davinder P Singh; Steven A Nelson; Mark R Pittelkow; Aaron R Mangold Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Daniel M O'Connor; Olivia S Jew; Marissa J Perman; Leslie A Castelo-Soccio; Flaura K Winston; Patrick J McMahon Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Rashid L Bashshur; Gary W Shannon; Trilokraj Tejasvi; Joseph C Kvedar; Michael Gates Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Anne Marchetti; Stephane Dalle; Delphine Maucort-Boulch; Mona Amini-Adl; Sébastien Debarbieux; Nicolas Poulalhon; Marie Perier-Muzet; Alice Phan; Luc Thomas Journal: Dermatol Pract Concept Date: 2020-06-29
Authors: Naomi Chuchu; Jacqueline Dinnes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Rubeta N Matin; Susan E Bayliss; Clare Davenport; Jacqueline F Moreau; Oliver Bassett; Kathie Godfrey; Colette O'Sullivan; Fiona M Walter; Richard Motley; Jonathan J Deeks; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Antal Jobbágy; Norbert Kiss; Fanni Adél Meznerics; Klára Farkas; Dóra Plázár; Szabolcs Bozsányi; Luca Fésűs; Áron Bartha; Endre Szabó; Kende Lőrincz; Miklós Sárdy; Norbert Miklós Wikonkál; Péter Szoldán; András Bánvölgyi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-25 Impact factor: 4.614