K Sies1, J K Winkler1, M Zieger2, M Kaatz2, H A Haenssle3. 1. Universitätshautklinik Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 2. Klinik für Haut- und Geschlechtskrankheiten, SRH Wald-Klinikum Gera, Gera, Deutschland. 3. Universitätshautklinik Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. holger.haenssle@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the establishment of dermoscopy as a routine examination procedure in dermatology, the spectrum of noninvasive, optical devices has further expanded. In difficult-to-diagnose clinical cases, these systems may support dermatologists to arrive at a correct diagnosis without the need for a surgical biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To give an overview about technical background, indications and diagnostic performance regarding four new optical procedures: reflectance confocal microscopy, in vivo multiphoton tomography, dermatofluoroscopy, and systems based on image analysis by artificial intelligence (AI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article is based on a selective review of the literature, as well as the authors' personal experience from clinical studies relevant for market approval of the devices. RESULTS: In contrast to standard histopathological slides with vertical cross sections, reflectance confocal microscopy and in vivo multiphoton tomography allow for "optical biopsies" with horizontal cross sections. Dermatofluoroscopy and AI-based image analyzers provide a numerical score, which helps to correctly classify a skin lesion. The presented new optical procedures may be applied for the diagnosis of skin cancer as well as inflammatory skin diseases. CONCLUSION: The presented optical procedures provide valuable additional information that supports dermatologists in making the correct diagnosis. However, a surgical biopsy followed by dermatohistopathological examination remains the diagnostic gold standard in dermatology.
BACKGROUND: Since the establishment of dermoscopy as a routine examination procedure in dermatology, the spectrum of noninvasive, optical devices has further expanded. In difficult-to-diagnose clinical cases, these systems may support dermatologists to arrive at a correct diagnosis without the need for a surgical biopsy. OBJECTIVE: To give an overview about technical background, indications and diagnostic performance regarding four new optical procedures: reflectance confocal microscopy, in vivo multiphoton tomography, dermatofluoroscopy, and systems based on image analysis by artificial intelligence (AI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This article is based on a selective review of the literature, as well as the authors' personal experience from clinical studies relevant for market approval of the devices. RESULTS: In contrast to standard histopathological slides with vertical cross sections, reflectance confocal microscopy and in vivo multiphoton tomography allow for "optical biopsies" with horizontal cross sections. Dermatofluoroscopy and AI-based image analyzers provide a numerical score, which helps to correctly classify a skin lesion. The presented new optical procedures may be applied for the diagnosis of skin cancer as well as inflammatory skin diseases. CONCLUSION: The presented optical procedures provide valuable additional information that supports dermatologists in making the correct diagnosis. However, a surgical biopsy followed by dermatohistopathological examination remains the diagnostic gold standard in dermatology.
Authors: Alon Scope; Cristiane Benvenuto-Andrade; Anna-Liza C Agero; Josep Malvehy; Susana Puig; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Klaus J Busam; Diego E Marra; Abel Torres; Iva Propperova; Richard G Langley; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Giovanni Pellacani; Stefania Seidenari; Allan C Halpern; Salvador Gonzalez Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2007-07-16 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Mihaela Balu; Christopher B Zachary; Ronald M Harris; Tatiana B Krasieva; Karsten König; Bruce J Tromberg; Kristen M Kelly Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: A Forschner; U Keim; M Hofmann; I Spänkuch; D Lomberg; B Weide; I Tampouri; T Eigentler; C Fink; C Garbe; H A Haenssle Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2018-06-07 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Enrico Dimitrow; Mirjana Ziemer; Martin Johannes Koehler; Johannes Norgauer; Karsten König; Peter Elsner; Martin Kaatz Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Philipp Tschandl; Cliff Rosendahl; Bengu Nisa Akay; Giuseppe Argenziano; Andreas Blum; Ralph P Braun; Horacio Cabo; Jean-Yves Gourhant; Jürgen Kreusch; Aimilios Lallas; Jan Lapins; Ashfaq Marghoob; Scott Menzies; Nina Maria Neuber; John Paoli; Harold S Rabinovitz; Christoph Rinner; Alon Scope; H Peter Soyer; Christoph Sinz; Luc Thomas; Iris Zalaudek; Harald Kittler Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 10.282