Suppr超能文献

移动数字远程皮肤镜检查在皮肤癌高危成年人皮肤自我检查中的准确性:一项开放标签、随机对照试验。

Accuracy of mobile digital teledermoscopy for skin self-examinations in adults at high risk of skin cancer: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

机构信息

Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Centre for Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; School of Public Health and Social Work, Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

出版信息

Lancet Digit Health. 2020 Mar;2(3):e129-e137. doi: 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30001-7. Epub 2020 Feb 20.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Skin self-examinations supplemented with mobile teledermoscopy might improve early detection of skin cancers compared with naked-eye skin self-examinations. We aimed to assess whether mobile teledermoscopy-enhanced skin self-examination can improve sensitivity and specificity of self-detection of skin cancers when compared with naked-eye skin self-examination.

METHODS

This randomised, controlled trial was done in Brisbane (QLD, Australia). Eligible participants (aged ≥18 years) had at least two skin cancer risk factors as self-reported in the eligibility survey and had to own or have access to an iPhone compatible with a dermatoscope attachment (iPhone versions 5-8). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), via a computer-generated randomisation procedure, to the intervention group (mobile dermoscopy-enhanced self-skin examination) or the control group (naked-eye skin self-examination). Control group and intervention group participants received web-based instructions on how to complete a whole body skin self-examination. All participants completed skin examinations at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months; intervention group participants submitted photographs of suspicious lesions to a dermatologist for telediagnosis after each skin examination and control group participants noted lesions on a body chart that was sent to the research team after each skin examination. All participants had an in-person whole-body clinical skin examination within 3 months of their last skin self-examination. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of skin self-examination, patient selection of clinically atypical lesions suspicious for melanoma or keratinocyte skin cancers (body sites examined, number of lesions photographed, types of lesions, and lesions missed), and diagnostic concordance of telediagnosis versus in-person whole-body clinical skin examination diagnosis. All primary outcomes were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all patients who had a clinical skin examination within 3 months of their last skin self-examination. This trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616000989448.

FINDINGS

Between March 6, 2017, and June 7, 2018, 234 participants consented to enrol in the study, of whom 116 (50%) were assigned to the intervention group and 118 (50%) were assigned to the control group. 199 participants (98 participants in the intervention group and 101 participants in the control group) attended the clinical skin examination and thus were eligible for analyses. Participants in the intervention group submitted 615 lesions (median 6·0 per person; range 1-24) for telediagnosis and participants in the control group identified and recorded 673 lesions (median 6·0 per person; range 1-16). At the lesion level, sensitivity for lesions clinically suspicious for skin cancer was 75% (95% CI 63-84) in the intervention group and 88% (95% CI 80-91) in the control group (p=0·04). Specificity was 87% (95% CI 85-90) in the intervention group and 89% (95% CI 87-91) in the control group (p=0·42). At the individual level, the intervention group had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 76-99) compared with 97% (95% CI 91-100) in the control group (p=0·26), and a specificity of 95% (95% CI 90-100) compared with 96% (95% CI 91-100) in the control group. The overall diagnostic concordance between the telediagnosis and in-person clinical skin examination was 88%.

INTERPRETATION

The use of mobile teledermoscopy did not increase sensitivity for the detection of skin cancers compared with naked-eye skin self-examination; thus, further evidence is necessary for inclusion of skin self-examination technology for public health benefit.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia).

摘要

背景

皮肤自我检查辅以移动远程皮肤镜检查可能比肉眼皮肤自我检查更能提高皮肤癌的早期发现率。我们旨在评估与肉眼皮肤自我检查相比,移动远程皮肤镜检查增强的皮肤自我检查是否可以提高皮肤癌自我检测的敏感性和特异性。

方法

这是一项在澳大利亚布里斯班进行的随机对照试验。合格的参与者(年龄≥18 岁)在资格调查中自我报告至少有两个皮肤癌风险因素,并且必须拥有或可以使用与皮肤科镜附件兼容的 iPhone(iPhone 版本 5-8)。参与者通过计算机生成的随机程序被随机分配(1:1)到干预组(移动远程皮肤镜增强的自我皮肤检查)或对照组(肉眼皮肤自我检查)。对照组和干预组的参与者都收到了关于如何完成全身皮肤自我检查的网络指导。所有参与者都在基线、1 个月和 2 个月时进行了皮肤检查;干预组的参与者在每次皮肤检查后将可疑病变的照片提交给皮肤科医生进行远程诊断,而对照组的参与者则在每次皮肤检查后将病变记录在发送给研究团队的身体图表上。所有参与者都在最后一次皮肤自我检查后 3 个月内进行了全身临床皮肤检查。主要结局是皮肤自我检查的敏感性和特异性、患者选择临床上可疑黑色素瘤或角质形成细胞皮肤癌的病变(检查的身体部位、拍摄的病变数量、病变类型和遗漏的病变)以及远程诊断与现场全身临床皮肤检查诊断的诊断一致性。所有主要结局均在改良意向治疗人群中进行分析,该人群包括所有在最后一次皮肤自我检查后 3 个月内进行临床皮肤检查的患者。该试验在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册处注册,ACTRN12616000989448。

结果

2017 年 3 月 6 日至 2018 年 6 月 7 日期间,有 234 名参与者同意参加该研究,其中 116 名(50%)被分配到干预组,118 名(50%)被分配到对照组。199 名参与者(干预组 98 名,对照组 101 名)参加了临床皮肤检查,因此符合分析条件。干预组的参与者提交了 615 个病变(中位数为每人 6.0;范围 1-24)进行远程诊断,对照组的参与者识别并记录了 673 个病变(中位数为每人 6.0;范围 1-16)。在病变水平,干预组中临床可疑皮肤癌的病变敏感性为 75%(95%CI 63-84),对照组为 88%(95%CI 80-91)(p=0.04)。特异性在干预组为 87%(95%CI 85-90),在对照组为 89%(95%CI 87-91)(p=0.42)。在个体水平上,干预组的敏感性为 87%(95%CI 76-99),而对照组为 97%(95%CI 91-100)(p=0.26),特异性为 95%(95%CI 90-100),而对照组为 96%(95%CI 91-100)。远程诊断与现场临床皮肤检查的总体诊断一致性为 88%。

解释

与肉眼皮肤自我检查相比,使用移动远程皮肤镜检查并没有提高皮肤癌的检测敏感性;因此,需要进一步的证据来纳入皮肤自我检查技术以造福公共健康。

资金

澳大利亚国家卫生和医学研究委员会。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验