Patient and dermatologists' perspectives on augmented intelligence for melanoma screening: A prospective study
- PMID: 38411348
- DOI: 10.1111/jdv.19905
Patient and dermatologists' perspectives on augmented intelligence for melanoma screening: A prospective study
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promising potential to enhance human decision-making as synergistic augmented intelligence (AuI), but requires critical evaluation for skin cancer screening in a real-world setting.
Objectives: To investigate the perspectives of patients and dermatologists after skin cancer screening by human, artificial and augmented intelligence.
Methods: A prospective comparative cohort study conducted at the University Hospital Basel included 205 patients (at high-risk of developing melanoma, with resected or advanced disease) and 8 dermatologists. Patients underwent skin cancer screening by a dermatologist with subsequent 2D and 3D total-body photography (TBP). Any suspicious and all melanocytic skin lesions ≥3 mm were imaged with digital dermoscopes and classified by corresponding convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Excisions were performed based on dermatologist's melanoma suspicion, study-defined elevated CNN risk-scores and/or melanoma suspicion by AuI. Subsequently, all patients and dermatologists were surveyed about their experience using questionnaires, including quantification of patient's safety sense following different examinations (subjective safety score (SSS): 0-10).
Results: Most patients believed AI could improve diagnostic performance (95.5%, n = 192/201). In total, 83.4% preferred AuI-based skin cancer screening compared to examination by AI or dermatologist alone (3D-TBP: 61.3%; 2D-TBP: 22.1%, n = 199). Regarding SSS, AuI induced a significantly higher feeling of safety than AI (mean-SSS (mSSS): 9.5 vs. 7.7, p < 0.0001) or dermatologist screening alone (mSSS: 9.5 vs. 9.1, p = 0.001). Most dermatologists expressed high trust in AI examination results (3D-TBP: 90.2%; 2D-TBP: 96.1%, n = 205). In 68.3% of the examinations, dermatologists felt that diagnostic accuracy improved through additional AI-assessment (n = 140/205). Especially beginners (<2 years' dermoscopic experience; 61.8%, n = 94/152) felt AI facilitated their clinical work compared to experts (>5 years' dermoscopic experience; 20.9%, n = 9/43). Contrarily, in divergent risk assessments, only 1.5% of dermatologists trusted a benign CNN-classification more than personal malignancy suspicion (n = 3/205).
Conclusions: While patients already prefer AuI with 3D-TBP for melanoma recognition, dermatologists continue to rely largely on their own decision-making despite high confidence in AI-results.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04605822).
© 2024 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Garbe C, Keim U, Eigentler TK, Amaral T, Katalinic A, Holleczek B, et al. Time trends in incidence and mortality of cutaneous melanoma in Germany. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(7):1272–1280.
-
- Forsea AM, del Marmol V, de Vries E, Bailey EE, Geller AC. Melanoma incidence and mortality in Europe: new estimates, persistent disparities. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167(5):1124–1130.
-
- Larkin J, Chiarion‐Sileni V, Gonzalez R, Grob J‐J, Rutkowski P, Lao CD, et al. Five‐year survival with combined Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in advanced melanoma. New Engl J Med. 2019;381(16):1535–1546.
-
- Robert C, Grob JJ, Stroyakovskiy D, Karaszewska B, Hauschild A, Levchenko E, et al. Five‐year outcomes with Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in metastatic melanoma. New Engl J Med. 2019;381(7):626–636.
-
- Weinstock MA. Early detection of melanoma. JAMA. 2000;284(7):886–889.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical