Department of Dermatology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Sheba Medical Center, Department of Dermatology, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel3Dermatology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151(10):1075-80. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2015.0810.
Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) studies have been performed to identify criteria for diagnosis of skin neoplasms. However, RCM-based diagnosis is operator dependent. Hence, reproducibility of RCM criteria needs to be tested.
To test interobserver reproducibility of recognition of previously published RCM descriptors and accuracy of RCM-based skin cancer diagnosis.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational retrospective web-based study of a set of RCM images collected at a tertiary academic medical center. Nine dermatologists (6 of whom had ≥3 years of RCM experience) from 6 countries evaluated an RCM study set from 100 biopsy-proven lesions, including 55 melanocytic nevi, 20 melanomas, 15 basal cell carcinomas, 7 solar lentigines or seborrheic keratoses, and 3 actinic keratoses. Between June 15, 2010, and October 21, 2010, participanting dermatologists, blinded to histopathological diagnosis, evaluated 3 RCM mosaic images per lesion for the presence of predefined RCM descriptors.
The main outcome was identification of RCM descriptors with fair to good interrater agreement (κ statistic, ≥0.3) and independent correlation with malignant vs benign diagnosis on discriminant analysis. Additional measures included sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of malignant vs benign for each evaluator, for majority diagnosis (rendered by ≥5 of 9 evaluators), and for experienced vs recent RCM users.
Eight RCM descriptors showed fair to good reproducibility and were independently associated with a specific diagnosis. Of these, the presence of pagetoid cells, atypical cells at the dermal-epidermal junction, and irregular epidermal architecture were associated with melanoma. Aspecific junctional pattern, basaloid cords, and ulceration were associated with basal cell carcinomas. Ringed junctional pattern and dermal nests were associated with nevi. The mean sensitivity for the group of evaluators was 88.9% (range, 82.9%-100%), and the mean specificity was 79.3% (range, 69.2%-90.8%). Majority diagnosis showed sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 80.0%. Sensitivity was higher for experienced vs recent RCM users (91.0% vs. 84.8%), but specificity was similar (80.0% vs. 77.9%).
The study highlights key RCM diagnostic criteria for melanoma and basal cell carcinoma that are reproducibly recognized among RCM users. Diagnostic accuracy increases with experience. The higher accuracy of majority diagnosis suggests that there is intrinsically more diagnostic information in RCM images than is currently used by individual evaluators.
反射式共聚焦显微镜(RCM)研究已经被用来确定皮肤肿瘤的诊断标准。然而,RCM 基于诊断是依赖于操作者的。因此,RCM 标准的重现性需要进行测试。
测试先前发表的 RCM 描述符的识别和基于 RCM 的皮肤癌诊断的准确性的观察者间重现性。
设计、设置和参与者:在一家三级学术医疗中心收集的一组 RCM 图像的观察性回顾性网络研究。来自 6 个国家的 9 名皮肤科医生(其中 6 名具有 ≥3 年的 RCM 经验)评估了一组 100 个活检证实的病变的 RCM 研究集,包括 55 个黑素细胞痣、20 个黑色素瘤、15 个基底细胞癌、7 个日光性角化病或脂溢性角化病和 3 个光化性角化病。在 2010 年 6 月 15 日至 2010 年 10 月 21 日期间,参与的皮肤科医生对每个病变的 3 个 RCM 镶嵌图像进行盲法评估,以确定预先定义的 RCM 描述符的存在。
主要结果是确定具有良好到中等观察者间一致性(κ 统计,≥0.3)的 RCM 描述符,并通过判别分析与恶性与良性诊断独立相关。其他措施包括每位评估者对恶性与良性的诊断的敏感性和特异性,对大多数评估者(由 ≥9 名评估者中的 5 名作出)的诊断,以及对有经验的和最近使用 RCM 的用户的诊断。
有 8 个 RCM 描述符具有良好到中等的可重复性,并且与特定的诊断独立相关。其中,派杰样细胞、表皮-真皮交界处的不典型细胞和不规则的表皮结构与黑色素瘤有关。非特异性交界模式、基底样索和溃疡与基底细胞癌有关。环状交界模式和真皮巢与痣有关。评估者组的平均敏感性为 88.9%(范围,82.9%-100%),平均特异性为 79.3%(范围,69.2%-90.8%)。多数诊断的敏感性为 100%,特异性为 80.0%。有经验的 RCM 用户的敏感性为 91.0%,而最近的 RCM 用户的敏感性为 84.8%,但特异性相似(80.0%对 77.9%)。
该研究强调了 RCM 诊断黑色素瘤和基底细胞癌的关键标准,这些标准在 RCM 用户中具有可重复性。诊断准确性随着经验的增加而提高。多数诊断的准确性更高表明,在 RCM 图像中存在比当前单个评估者使用的更多的诊断信息。