Can automated dermoscopy image analysis instruments provide added benefit for the dermatologist? A study comparing the results of three systems.
Details
Serval ID
serval:BIB_99E3CDD590FF
Type
Article: article from journal or magazin.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Can automated dermoscopy image analysis instruments provide added benefit for the dermatologist? A study comparing the results of three systems.
Journal
The British journal of dermatology
ISSN
0007-0963 (Print)
ISSN-L
0007-0963
Publication state
Published
Issued date
11/2007
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Volume
157
Number
5
Pages
926-933
Language
english
Notes
Publication types: Comparative Study ; Journal Article
Publication Status: ppublish
Publication Status: ppublish
Abstract
Instruments designed to provide computer program-driven diagnosis of dermoscopic images of lesions are now commercially available. Multiple publications tout the improved diagnostic accuracy of these instruments compared with that of clinicians.
Our aim was to evaluate the actual usefulness of these instruments for dermatologists practising in a pigmented lesion clinic.
Over a 4-month period we subjected lesions, which were being evaluated in one of our clinics, to automated computer diagnosis performed by three commercially available instruments. We intentionally included three groups of lesions: group 1 lesions were suspicious melanocytic lesions that were scheduled to be excised; group 2 lesions were nonmelanocytic lesions; group 3 lesions were clinically obvious melanomas. The automated diagnoses provided by the instruments were compared with the dermoscopy diagnosis of experienced physicians and with histopathology.
We included a total of 107 lesions. One imaging system's computer algorithm was unable to analyse one third of the lesions. All three instruments' computer algorithms were able to identify the clinically obvious melanomas (group 3) correctly. However, all three systems tended to overdiagnose by incorrectly classifying most seborrhoeic keratoses (group 2) as potential malignant lesions. Concerning the suspect melanocytic lesions (group 1), which are precisely the lesions for which a dermatologist would welcome a second opinion, we found significant variability in the diagnostic accuracy of the instruments tested. However, all three systems providing computer-assisted diagnosis had a tendency to overdiagnose benign melanocytic lesions as potential melanomas.
Although the image analysis systems tested by us correctly identified the clinically obvious melanomas, they were not able to discriminate between most dysplastic naevi and early malignant melanoma. Thus, for the moment these computer-assisted diagnostic imaging machines provide little to no added benefit for the experienced dermatologist/dermoscopist.
Our aim was to evaluate the actual usefulness of these instruments for dermatologists practising in a pigmented lesion clinic.
Over a 4-month period we subjected lesions, which were being evaluated in one of our clinics, to automated computer diagnosis performed by three commercially available instruments. We intentionally included three groups of lesions: group 1 lesions were suspicious melanocytic lesions that were scheduled to be excised; group 2 lesions were nonmelanocytic lesions; group 3 lesions were clinically obvious melanomas. The automated diagnoses provided by the instruments were compared with the dermoscopy diagnosis of experienced physicians and with histopathology.
We included a total of 107 lesions. One imaging system's computer algorithm was unable to analyse one third of the lesions. All three instruments' computer algorithms were able to identify the clinically obvious melanomas (group 3) correctly. However, all three systems tended to overdiagnose by incorrectly classifying most seborrhoeic keratoses (group 2) as potential malignant lesions. Concerning the suspect melanocytic lesions (group 1), which are precisely the lesions for which a dermatologist would welcome a second opinion, we found significant variability in the diagnostic accuracy of the instruments tested. However, all three systems providing computer-assisted diagnosis had a tendency to overdiagnose benign melanocytic lesions as potential melanomas.
Although the image analysis systems tested by us correctly identified the clinically obvious melanomas, they were not able to discriminate between most dysplastic naevi and early malignant melanoma. Thus, for the moment these computer-assisted diagnostic imaging machines provide little to no added benefit for the experienced dermatologist/dermoscopist.
Keywords
Dermatology/instrumentation, Dermatology/methods, Dermoscopy/instrumentation, Diagnosis, Computer-Assisted/standards, Humans, Prospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Skin Diseases/diagnosis, Skin Neoplasms/diagnosis, Switzerland
Pubmed
Web of science
Create date
02/11/2017 12:24
Last modification date
20/08/2019 16:01
Usage data
