Diagnostic accuracy of confocal microscopy imaging vs. punch biopsy for diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma

Background: In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a promising non-invasive skin imaging technique that could facilitate early diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) instead of routine punch biopsies. However, the clinical value and utility of RCM vs. a punch biopsy in diagnosing and subtyping BCC is unknown. Objective: To assess diagnostic accuracy of RCM vs. punch biopsy for diagnosing and subtyping clinically suspected primary BCC. Methods: A prospective, consecutive cohort of 100 patients with clinically suspected BCC were included at two tertiary hospitals in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 3 February 2015 and 2 October 2015. Patients were randomized between two test-treatment pathways: diagnosing and subtyping using RCM imaging followed by direct surgical excision (RCM one-stop-shop) or planned excision based upon the histological diagnosis and subtype of punch biopsy (standard care). The primary outcome was the agreement between the index tests (RCM vs. punch biopsy) and reference standard (excision specimen) in correctly diagnosing BCC. The secondary outcome was the agreement between the index tests and reference standard in correctly identifying the most aggressive BCC subtypes. Results: Sensitivity to detect BCC was similar for RCM and punch biopsy (100% vs. 93.94%), but a punch biopsy was more specific than RCM (79% vs. 38%). RCM expert evaluation for diagnosing BCC had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 75%. The agreement between RCM and excision specimen in identifying the most aggressive BCC subtype ranged from 50% to 85% vs. 77% by a punch biopsy. Conclusion: Reflectance confocal microscopy and punch biopsy have comparable diagnostic accuracy to diagnose and subtype BCC depending on RCM experience. Although experienced RCM users could accurately diagnose BCC at a distance, we found an important difference in subtyping BCC. Future RCM studies need to focus on diagnostic accuracy, reliability and specific criteria to improve BCC subtype differentiation

Inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of confocal microscopy imaging in diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging can be used to diagnose and subtype basal cell carcinoma (BCC) but relies on individual morphologic pattern recognition that might vary among users. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of RCM in correctly diagnosing and subtyping BCC. METHODS: In this prospective study we evaluated the inter-rater and intra-rater agreement of RCM on BCC presence and subtype among three raters with varying experience who independently assessed static images of 48 RCM cases twice with four weeks interval (T1 and T2). Histopathologic confirmation of presence and subtype of BCC from surgical excision specimen was defined as the reference standard. RESULTS: The inter-rater agreement of RCM for BCC presence showed an agreement of 82% at T1 and 84% at T2. The agreements for subtyping BCC were lower (52% for T1 and 47% for T2). The intra-rater agreement of RCM for BCC presence showed an observed agreement that varied from 79% to 92%. The observed agreements for subtyping varied from 56% to 71%. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our results show that RCM is reliable in correctly diagnosing BCC based on the assessment of static RCM images. RCM could potentially play an important role in BCC management if accurate subtyping will be achieved. Therefore future clinical studies on reliability and specific RCM features for BCC subtypes are required. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Diagnostic accuracy of confocal microscopy imaging vs. punch biopsy for diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma

BackgroundIn vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a promising non-invasive skin imaging technique that could facilitate early diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) instead of routine punch biopsies. However, the clinical value and utility of RCM vs. a punch biopsy in diagnosing and subtyping BCC is unknown. ObjectiveTo assess diagnostic accuracy of RCM vs. punch biopsy for diagnosing and subtyping clinically suspected primary BCC. MethodsA prospective, consecutive cohort of 100 patients with clinically suspected BCC were included at two tertiary hospitals in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, between 3 February 2015 and 2 October 2015. Patients were randomized between two test-treatment pathways: diagnosing and subtyping using RCM imaging followed by direct surgical excision (RCM one-stop-shop) or planned excision based upon the histological diagnosis and subtype of punch biopsy (standard care). The primary outcome was the agreement between the index tests (RCM vs. punch biopsy) and reference standard (excision specimen) in correctly diagnosing BCC. The secondary outcome was the agreement between the index tests and reference standard in correctly identifying the most aggressive BCC subtypes. ResultsSensitivity to detect BCC was similar for RCM and punch biopsy (100% vs. 93.94%), but a punch biopsy was more specific than RCM (79% vs. 38%). RCM expert evaluation for diagnosing BCC had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 75%. The agreement between RCM and excision specimen in identifying the most aggressive BCC subtype ranged from 50% to 85% vs. 77% by a punch biopsy. ConclusionReflectance confocal microscopy and punch biopsy have comparable diagnostic accuracy to diagnose and subtype BCC depending on RCM experience. Although experienced RCM users could accurately diagnose BCC at a distance, we found an important difference in subtyping BCC. Future RCM studies need to focus on diagnostic accuracy, reliability and specific criteria to improve BCC subtype differentiatio

One-stop-shop with confocal microscopy imaging vs. standard care for surgical treatment of basal cell carcinoma: an open-label, noninferiority, randomized controlled multicentre trial

Background: Routine punch biopsies are considered to be standard care for diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma (BCC) when clinically suspected. Objectives: We assessed the efficacy of a one-stop-shop concept using in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging as a diagnostic tool vs. standard care for surgical treatment in patients with clinically suspected BCC. Methods: In this open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority, randomized controlled multicentre trial we enrolled patients with clinically suspected BCC at two tertiary referral centres in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to the RCM one-stop-shop (diagnosing and subtyping using RCM followed by direct surgical excision) or standard care (planned excision based on the histological diagnosis and subtype of a punch biopsy). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with tumour-free margins after surgical excision of BCC. Results: Of the 95 patients included, 73 (77%) had a BCC histologically confirmed using a surgical excision specimen. All patients (40 of 40, 100%) in the one-stop-shop group had tumour-free margins. In the standard-care group tumour-free margins were found in all but two patients (31 of 33, 94%). The difference in the proportion of patients with tumour-free margins after BCC excision between the one-stop-shop group and the standard-care group was −0·06 (90% confidence interval −0·17−0·01), establishing noninferiority. Conclusions: The proposed new treatment strategy seems suitable in facilitating early diagnosis and direct treatment for patients with BCC, depending on factors such as availability of RCM, size and site of the lesion, patient preference and whether direct surgical excision is feasible

Biopsy outperforms reflectance confocal microscopy in diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma: results and experiences from a randomized controlled multicentre trial

Background: Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a noninvasive method for skin assessment, allowing entire lesion evaluation up to the papillary dermis. RCM is a potentially attractive alternative to punch biopsy (PB) in basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of RCM vs. PB in diagnosing and subtyping BCC, and to study patient satisfaction and preferences. Methods: Patients with a clinically suspected primary BCC were randomized between RCM and biopsy. Conventional surgical excision or follow-up were used as reference. Sensitivity and specificity for BCC diagnosis and subtyping were calculated for both methods. BCC subtype was stratified based on clinical relevance: aggressive (infiltrative/micronodular) vs. nonaggressive (superficial/nodular) histopathological subtype and superficial vs. nonsuperficial BCC. Data on patient satisfaction and preferences were collected using a questionnaire and a contingent valuation method. Results: Sensitivity for BCC diagnosis was high and similar for both methods (RCM 99·0% vs. biopsy 99·0%; P = 1·0). Specificity for BCC diagnosis was lower for RCM (59·1% vs. 100·0%; P < 0·001). Sensitivity for aggressive BCC subtypes was lower for RCM (33·3% vs. 77·3%; P = 0·003). Sensitivity for nonsuperficial BCC was not significantly different (RCM 88·9% vs. biopsy 91·0%; P = 0·724). Patient satisfaction and preferences were good and highly comparable for both methods. Conclusions: Biopsy outperforms RCM in diagnosing and subtyping clinically suspected primary BCC. This outcome does not support routine clinical implementation of RCM, as a replacement for PBs in this patient group

Lentigo maligna (melanoma): a systematic review and meta-analysis on surgical techniques and presurgical mapping by reflectance confocal microscopy

Because of an increased risk of local recurrence following surgical treatment of lentigo maligna (melanoma) (LM/LMM), the optimal surgical technique is still a matter of debate. We aimed to evaluate the effect of different surgical techniques and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) on local recurrence and survival outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed databases through May 20 th , 2022. Randomized and observational studies with ≥10 lesions were eligible for inclusion. Bias assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies instrument. Meta-analysis was performed for local recurrence, as there were insufficient events for the other clinical outcomes. We included 41 studies with 5059 LM and 1271 LMM. Surgical techniques included wide local excision (WLE) (n=1355), staged excision (n=2442), and Mohs' micrographic surgery (MMS) (n=2909). Six studies included RCM. The guideline-recommended margin was insufficient in 21.6%-44.6% of LM/LMM. Local recurrence rate was lowest for patients treated by MMS combined with immunohistochemistry (<1%; 95% CI, 0.3%-1.9%), and highest for WLE (13%; 95% CI, 7.2%-21.6%). The mean follow-up varied from 27 to 63 months depending on surgical technique with moderate to high heterogeneity for MMS and WLE. Handheld-RCM decreased both the rate of positive histological margins (P<0.0001) and necessary surgical stages (P<0.0001). The majority of regional (17/25) and distant (34/43) recurrences occurred in patients treated by WLE. Melanoma-associated mortality was low (1.5%; 32/2107), and more patients died due to unrelated causes (6.7%; 107/1608). This systematic review shows a clear reduction in local recurrences using microscopically controlled surgical techniques over WLE. The use of HH-RCM showed a trend in the reduction of incomplete resections and local recurrences even when used with WLE. Due to selection bias, heterogeneity, low prevalence of stage III/IV disease, and limited survival data, it was not possible to determine the effect of the different surgical techniques on survival outcomes

Efficacy and safety of tenecteplase in combination with enoxaparin, abciximab, or unfractionated heparin: The ASSENT-3 randomised trial in acute myocardial infarction

Background: Current fibrinolytic therapies fail to achieve optimum reperfusion in many patients. Low-molecular-weight heparins and platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have shown the potential to improve pharmacological reperfusion therapy. We did a randomised, open-label trial to compare the efficacy and safety of tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or abciximab, with that of tenecteplase plus weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods: 6095 patients with acute myocardial infarction of less than 6 h were randomly assigned one of three regimens: full-dose tenecteplase and enoxaparin for a maximum of 7 days (enoxaparin group; n=2040), half-dose tenecteplase with weight-adjusted low-dose unfractionated heparin and a 12-h infusion of abciximab (abciximab group; n=2017), or full-dose tenecteplase with weight-adjusted unfractionated heparin for 48 h (unfractionated heparin group; n=2038). The primary endpoints were the composites of 30-day mortality, in-hospital reinfarction, or in-hospital refractory ischaemia (efficacy endpoint), and the above endpoint plus in-hospital intracranial haemorrhage or in-hospital major bleeding complications (efficacy plus safety endpoint). Analysis was by intention to treat. Findings: There were significantly fewer efficacy endpoints in the enoxaparin and abciximab groups than in the unfractionated heparin group: 233/2037 (11.4%) versus 315/2038 (15.4%; relative risk 0.74 [95% CI 0.63-0.87], p=0.0002) for enoxaparin, and 223/2017 (11.1%) versus 315/2038 (15.4%; 0.72 [0.61-0.84], p&lt;0.0001) for abciximab. The same was true for the efficacy plus safety endpoint: 280/2037 (13.7%) versus 347/2036 (17.0%; 0.81 [0.70-0.93], p=0.0037) for enoxaparin, and 287/2016 (14.2%) versus 347/2036 (17.0%; 0.84 [0.72-0.96], p=0.01416) for abciximab. Interpretation: The tenecteplase plus enoxaparin or abciximab regimens studied here reduce the frequency of ischaemic complications of an acute myocardial infarction. In light of its ease of administration, tenecteplase plus enoxaparin seems to be an attractive alternative reperfusion regimen that warrants further study