Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Nov 9;12(11):e0187748.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187748. eCollection 2017.

Improving diagnostic sensitivity of combined dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy imaging through double reader concordance evaluation in telemedicine settings: A retrospective study of 1000 equivocal cases

A M Witkowski  1 , J Łudzik  1   2 , F Arginelli  1 , S Bassoli  1 , E Benati  1 , A Casari  1 , N De Carvalho  1 , B De Pace  1 , F Farnetani  1 , A Losi  1 , M Manfredini  1 , C Reggiani  1 , J Malvehy  3 , G Pellacani  1
Affiliations

Improving diagnostic sensitivity of combined dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy imaging through double reader concordance evaluation in telemedicine settings: A retrospective study of 1000 equivocal cases

A M Witkowski et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is an imaging device that permits non-invasive visualization of cellular morphology and has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopically equivocal cutaneous lesions. The application of double reader concordance evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets in retrospective settings and its potential application to telemedicine evaluation has not been tested in a large study population.

Objective: To improve diagnostic sensitivity of RCM image diagnosis using a double reader concordance evaluation approach; to reduce mismanagement of equivocal cutaneous lesions in retrospective consultation and telemedicine settings.

Methods: 1000 combined dermoscopy-RCM image sets were evaluated in blind by 10 readers with advanced training and internship in dermoscopy and RCM evaluation. We compared sensitivity and specificity of single reader evaluation versus double reader concordance evaluation as well as the effect of diagnostic confidence on lesion management in a retrospective setting.

Results: Single reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 95.2% and specificity of 76.3%, with misdiagnosis of 8 melanomas, 4 basal cell carcinomas and 2 squamous cell carcinomas. Combined double reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 98.3% and specificity of 65.5%, with misdiagnosis of 1 in-situ melanoma and 2 basal cell carcinomas.

Conclusion: Evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets of cutaneous lesions by single reader evaluation in retrospective settings is limited by sensitivity levels that may result in potential mismanagement of malignant lesions. Double reader blind concordance evaluation may improve the sensitivity of diagnosis and management safety. The use of a second check can be implemented in telemedicine settings where expert consultation and second opinions may be required.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. ROC curve for double reading.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Vestergaard ME, Macaskill P, Holt PE, Menzies SW. Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: a meta-analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol. 2008. September;159(3):669–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08713.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol. 2002. March;3(3):159–65. - PubMed
    1. Argenziano G, Cerroni L, Zalaudek I, Staibano S, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Arpaia N et al. Accuracy in melanoma detection: a 10-year multicenter survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012. July;67(1):54–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.07.019 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Argenziano G, Moscarella E, Annetta A, Battarra VC, Brunetti B, Buligan C et al. Melanoma detection in Italian pigmented lesion clinics. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2014. Apr;149(2):161–6. - PubMed
    1. Łudzik J, Witkowski AM, Roterman-Konieczna I, Bassoli S, Farnetani F, Pellacani G. Improving Diagnostic Accuracy of Dermoscopically Equivocal Pink Cutaneous Lesions with Reflectance Confocal Microscopy in Telemedicine Settings: Double Reader Concordance Evaluation of 316 Cases. PLoS One. 2016. September 8;11(9). - PMC - PubMed