A worthwhile tool in evaluating worrisome lesions

,; ,; ,; ,; ,; ,; ,; ,; ,; ,

doi:doi: 10.12788/jfp.0655

Original Research

A worthwhile tool in evaluating worrisome lesions

J Fam Pract. 2023 September;72(7):E1-E22 | doi: 10.12788/jfp.0655

PDF Download

References

1. Goetsch NJ, Hoehns JD, Sutherland JE, et al. Assessment of postgraduate skin lesion education among Iowa family physicians. SAGE Open Med. 2017;5:2050312117691392. doi: 10.1177/2050312117691392

2. Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Chuchu N, et al. Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosing melanoma in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD011902. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011902.pub2

3. Jones OT, Jurascheck LC, van Melle MA, et al. Dermoscopy for melanoma detection and triage in primary care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e027529. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027529

4. Malvehy J, Hauschild A, Curiel-Lewandrowski C, et al. Clinical performance of the Nevisense system in cutaneous melanoma detection: an international, multicentre, prospective and blinded clinical trial on efficacy and safety. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171:1099-1107. doi: 10.1111/bjd.13121

5. Svoboda RM, Prado G, Mirsky RS, et al. Assessment of clinician accuracy for diagnosing melanoma on the basis of electrical impedance spectroscopy score plus morphology versus lesion morphology alone. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:285-287. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.048

6. Mohr P, Birgersson U, Berking C, et al. Electrical impedance spectroscopy as a potential adjunct diagnostic tool for cutaneous melanoma. Skin Res Technol. 2013;19:75-83. doi: 10.1111/srt.12008

7. Rocha L, Menzies SW, Lo S, et al. Analysis of an electrical impedance spectroscopy system in short-term digital dermoscopy imaging of melanocytic lesions. Br J Dermatol. 2017;177:1432-1438. doi: 10.1111/bjd.15595

8. Litchman GH, Teplitz RW, Marson JW, et al. Impact of electrical impedance spectroscopy on dermatologists’ number needed to biopsy metric and biopsy decisions for pigmented skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:976-979. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2020.09.011

9. Greenwood-Lee J, Jewett L, Woodhouse L, et al. A categorisation of problems and solutions to improve patient referrals from primary to specialty care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18:1-16. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3745-y

10. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Linnet K, et al. Beyond diagnostic accuracy: the clinical utility of diagnostic tests. Clin Chem. 2012;58:1636-1643. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.182576

11. Argenziano G, Cerroni L, Zalaudek I , et al. Accuracy in melanoma detection: a 10-year multicenter survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67:54-59. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.07.019

12. Menzies SW, Vestergaard ME, Macaskill P, et al. 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;159:669-676. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08713.x

13. Menzies SW, Emery J, Staples M, et al. Impact of dermoscopy and short-term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging for the management of pigmented lesions in primary care: a sequential intervention trial. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161:1270-1277. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09374.x

14. Noor O, Nanda A, Rao BK. A dermoscopy survey to assess who is using it and why it is or is not being used. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48:951-952. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-4632.2009.04095.x

15. Weigl BH, Boyle DS, de los Santos T, et al. Simplicity of use: a critical feature for widespread adoption of diagnostic technologies in low-resource settings. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2009;6:461-464. doi: 10.1586/erd.09.31

16. Sarac E, Meiwes A, Eigentler T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of electrical impedance spectroscopy in non-melanoma skin cancer. Acta Derm Venereol. 2020;100:adv00328. doi: 10.2340/00015555-3689

Analysis. A biopsy or referral rating of 4 or 5 was considered a decision to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with melanoma or SDN warranting excision), whereas a selection of 1 to 3 was considered a decision not to biopsy or refer (ie, a diagnostic decision consistent with a benign PSL). The sensitivity and specificity of biopsy/referral decisions for melanomas and SDN, the proportion of missed melanomas and SDN, and the proportion of biopsy/referral decisions for benign lesions were separately determined for visual inspection alone and visual inspection with EIS score. Similarly, diagnostic accuracy was calculated for these clinical scenarios. These metrics were further stratified among different subsets of the respondent population. Differences in sensitivity, specificity, biopsy/referral decision proportions, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated using McNemar’s test for paired proportions.

RESULTS

Sixty-one respondents, comprising 44 physicians and 17 NPs, completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 43% (TABLE 1). In total, 1354 clinical decisions (677 based on visual inspection alone and 677 based on visual inspection plus EIS) were made. A biopsy/referral decision was made after assessing 416 of 677 cases (61%) with visual inspection alone and 360 of 677 cases (53%) when relying on visual inspection plus EIS. None of the respondents reported any prior experience with EIS.

When incorporating EIS scores, respondents’ mean sensitivity for melanomas and SDN increased from 69.2% to 90.0% (P < .001) and specificity from 44.0% to 72.6% (P < .001; TABLE 2). At baseline, physicians demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 74.6% and 46.5%, respectively, while NPs demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 56.1% and 37.9%, respectively.

All respondent subgroups stratified by occupation and years of experience saw significant increases in both sensitivity and specificity upon the incorporation of EIS scores, with NPs seeing a greater increase in sensitivity (56.1% vs 85.4%; P < .001) and specificity (37.9% vs 69.0%; P < .001) than physicians (sensitivity: 74.6% vs 91.9%; P < .001; specificity: 46.5% vs 74.1%; P < .001). The only difference in diagnostic performance based on years of experience was a greater pre-EIS sensitivity by clinicians who had been in practice for ≥ 15 years, compared with those in practice for shorter periods (TABLE 2).

The improvements, seen in clinicians of varying training and experience, suggest that the learning curve of EIS may not be as steep as that of dermoscopy.

Diagnostic accuracy increased significantly from 48% when based on visual inspection alone to 73% with the addition of EIS scores (P < .001; TABLE 3). Physicians and NPs each significantly increased their diagnostic accuracy upon the incorporation of EIS, with NPs exhibiting the greatest increase (from 36.9% to 65.7%; P < .001). PCPs with 6 to 14 years of experience saw the greatest increase in diagnostic accuracy when adding EIS (45.9% vs 76.4%; P < .001). Overall, the addition of EIS scores resulted in 58 fewer missed melanomas and SDN and 114 fewer benign referrals or biopsies (TABLE 4).

Continue to: DISCUSSION