Yi-Quan Xiong1, Shu-Juan Ma2, Yun Mo1, Shu-Ting Huo1, Yu-Qi Wen1, Qing Chen3. 1. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou North Road, Guangzhou, 510515, China. 2. School of Public Health, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, 410008, China. 3. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Tropical Disease Research, Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Southern Medical University, 1838 Guangzhou North Road, Guangzhou, 510515, China. qch.2009@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) are non-invasive methods for diagnosis of malignant skin tumours. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of dermoscopy and RCM for the diagnosis of malignant skin tumours. METHODS: Systematic electronic literature searches were conducted to include PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library database, and Web of Science, up to 26 April 2016. Pooled additional detection rate (ADR), diagnostic accuracy, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using STATA and Meta-Disc analysis. RESULTS: Eight published studies were included in the analysis, involving 1141 skin lesions, which reported a per-lesion analysis of dermoscopy and RCM. Within the same patient group and at the per-lesion level, RCM significantly increased the detection rate of malignant skin tumours by 7.7% (95% CI 0.01-0.14). The pooled sensitivity of dermoscopy was similar to RCM [88.1% (95% CI 0.85-0.91) vs. 93.5% (95% CI 0.91-0.96)]. The specificity of dermoscopy was significantly lower than that of RCM [52.9% (95% CI 0.49-0.57) vs. 80.3% (95% CI 0.77-0.83)]. The pooled ADR of RCM for melanoma detection was 4.3% (95% CI 0.002-0.08). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of dermoscopy for melanoma detection were 88.4% (95% CI 0.84-0.92) and 49.1% (95% CI 0.45-0.53), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of RCM were 93.5% (95% CI 0.90-0.96) and 78.8% (95% CI 0.75-0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with dermoscopy, RCM has a significantly greater diagnostic specificity for malignant skin tumours and so could improve their detection rate.
PURPOSE: Dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) are non-invasive methods for diagnosis of malignant skin tumours. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of dermoscopy and RCM for the diagnosis of malignant skin tumours. METHODS: Systematic electronic literature searches were conducted to include PubMed, Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library database, and Web of Science, up to 26 April 2016. Pooled additional detection rate (ADR), diagnostic accuracy, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using STATA and Meta-Disc analysis. RESULTS: Eight published studies were included in the analysis, involving 1141 skin lesions, which reported a per-lesion analysis of dermoscopy and RCM. Within the same patient group and at the per-lesion level, RCM significantly increased the detection rate of malignant skin tumours by 7.7% (95% CI 0.01-0.14). The pooled sensitivity of dermoscopy was similar to RCM [88.1% (95% CI 0.85-0.91) vs. 93.5% (95% CI 0.91-0.96)]. The specificity of dermoscopy was significantly lower than that of RCM [52.9% (95% CI 0.49-0.57) vs. 80.3% (95% CI 0.77-0.83)]. The pooled ADR of RCM for melanoma detection was 4.3% (95% CI 0.002-0.08). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of dermoscopy for melanoma detection were 88.4% (95% CI 0.84-0.92) and 49.1% (95% CI 0.45-0.53), respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of RCM were 93.5% (95% CI 0.90-0.96) and 78.8% (95% CI 0.75-0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with dermoscopy, RCM has a significantly greater diagnostic specificity for malignant skin tumours and so could improve their detection rate.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dermoscopy; Melanoma; Meta-analysis; Reflectance confocal microscopy; Skin cancer
Authors: Mette Mogensen; Lars Thrane; Thomas M Jørgensen; Peter E Andersen; Gregor B E Jemec Journal: J Biophotonics Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.207
Authors: Aditi Sahu; Jose Cordero; Xiancheng Wu; Susanne Kossatz; Ucalene Harris; Paula Demetrio Desouza Franca; Nicholas R Kurtansky; Niasia Everett; Stephen Dusza; Jilliana Monnier; Piyush Kumar; Christi Fox; Christian Brand; Sheryl Roberts; Kivanc Kose; William Phillips; Erica Lee; Chih-Shan Jason Chen; Anthony Rossi; Kishwer Nehal; Melissa Pulitzer; Caterina Longo; Allan Halpern; Thomas Reiner; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Manu Jain Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: A M Witkowski; J Łudzik; F Arginelli; S Bassoli; E Benati; A Casari; N De Carvalho; B De Pace; F Farnetani; A Losi; M Manfredini; C Reggiani; J Malvehy; G Pellacani Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240