Sun protection for preventing basal cell and squamous cell skin cancers

Background'Keratinocyte cancer' is now the preferred term for the most commonly identified skin cancers basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and cutaneoussquamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), which were previously commonly categorised as non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). Keratinocytecancer (KC) represents about 95% of malignant skin tumours. Lifestyle changes have led to increased exposure to the sun, which has,in turn, led to a significant increase of new cases of KC, with a worldwide annual incidence of between 3% and 8%. The successful useof preventive measures could mean a significant reduction in the resources used by health systems, compared with the high cost of thetreatment of these conditions. At present, there is no information about the quality of the evidence for the use of these sun protectionstrategies with an assessment of their benefits and risks.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of sun protection strategies (i.e. sunscreen and barrier methods) for preventing keratinocyte cancer (that is, basal cellcarcinoma (BCC) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) of the skin) in the general population.Search methodsWe searched the following databases up to May 2016: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, andLILACS. We also searched five trial registries and the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of preventive strategies for keratinocyte cancer, such as physical barriers andsunscreens, in the general population (children and adults), which may provide information about benefits and adverse events related tothe use of solar protection measures. We did not include trials focused on educational strategies to prevent KC or preventive strategiesin high-risk groups. Our prespecified primary outcomes were BCC or cSCC confirmed clinically or by histopathology at any follow-up andadverse events

High frequency ultrasound for the diagnosis of skin cancer in adults

Background: Early accurate detection of all skin cancer types is essential to guide appropriate management and to improve morbidity and survival. Melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are high risk skin cancers which have the potential to metastasise and ultimately lead to death, whereas basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually localised with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue. Anxiety around missing early curable cases needs to be balanced against inappropriate referral and unnecessary excision of benign lesions. Ultrasound is a non-invasive imaging technique which relies on the measurement of sound wave reflections from the tissues of the body. At lower frequencies, the deeper structures of the body such as the internal organs can be visualised, while high frequency ultrasound (HFUS) with transducer frequencies of at least 20MHz, has a much lower depth of tissue penetration but produces a higher resolution image of tissues and structures closer to the skin surface. Used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic examination of suspected skin cancer, or both, HFUS may offer additional diagnostic information compared to other technologies. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HFUS to assist in the diagnosis of (a) melanoma and intraepidermal melanocytic variants, (b) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and (c) basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in adults. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies evaluating HFUS (>= 20 MHz) in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, cSCC or BCC, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). Due to scarcity of data and poor quality of studies, no meta-analysis was undertaken for this review. For illustrative purposes, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were plotted on coupled forest plots. Main results: Six studies were included, providing 29 datasets, 20 for diagnosis of melanoma (1125 lesions and 242 melanomas) and 9 for diagnosis of BCC (993 lesions and 119 BCCs). No data relating to the diagnosis of cSCC were identified. Studies were generally poorly reported limiting judgements of methodological quality. Half of studies did not set out to establish test accuracy and all should be considered preliminary evaluations of the potential usefulness of HFUS. There were particularly high concerns for applicability of findings due to selective study populations and data driven thresholds for test positivity. Studies reporting qualitative assessments of HFUS images excluded up to 22% of lesions (including some melanomas) due to them not being visualised by the test. Derived sensitivities for qualitative HFUS characteristics were at least 83% (95% CI 75% to 90%) for the detection of melanoma; the combination of three features (lesions appearing hypoechoic, homogenous and well defined) demonstrating 100% sensitivity in two studies, with variable corresponding specificities of 33% (95% CI 20% to 48%) and 73% (95% CI 57% to 85%) (Lower limits of the 95% CIs for sensitivities were 94% and 82% respectively). Quantitative measurement of HFUS outputs in two studies enabled decision thresholds to be set to achieve 100% sensitivity; specificities were 93% (95% CI 77% to 99%) and 65% (95% CI 51% to 76%). It was not possible to make summary statements regarding HFUS accuracy for the diagnosis of BCC due to highly variable sensitivities and specificities. Authors' conclusions: Insufficient data are available on the potential value of HFUS in the diagnosis of melanoma or BCC. Given the between study heterogeneity, unclear to low methodological quality and limited volume of evidence, no implications for practice can be drawn. The main value of the preliminary studies included may be in provision of guidance on the possible components of future diagnostic rules for diagnosis of melanoma or BCC using HFUS that require future evaluation. A prospective evaluation of HFUS added to visual inspection and dermoscopy alone in a standard health care setting with a clearly defined and representative population of participants would be required for a full and proper evaluation of accuracy

Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for the diagnosis of melanoma in adults

Background: Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Although history-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician are usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer, dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist diagnosis by specialist clinicians and is increasingly used in primary care settings. Dermoscopy is a magnification technique using visible light that allows more detailed examination of the skin compared to examination by the naked eye alone. Establishing the additive value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection alone across a range of observers and settings is critical to understanding its contribution for the diagnosis of melanoma and to future understanding of the potential role of the growing number of other highresolution image analysis techniques. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults, and to compare its accuracy with that of visual inspection alone. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies of any design that evaluated dermoscopy in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data on the accuracy of visual inspection, to allow comparisons of tests, was included only if reported in the included studies of dermoscopy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary ROC methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; observer expertise; and dermoscopy training. Main results: A total of 104 study publications reporting on 103 study cohorts with 42,788 lesions (including 5700 cases) were included, providing 354 datasets for dermoscopy. The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test and reference standard domains and mainly high or unclear for participant selection and participant flow. Concerns regarding the applicability of study findings were largely scored as ‘High’ concern in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic. The accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants was reported in 86 datasets; 26 for evaluations conducted in-person (dermoscopy added to visual inspection) and 60 for image-based evaluations (diagnosis based on interpretation of dermoscopic images). Analyses of studies by prior testing revealed no obvious effect on accuracy; analyses were hampered by the lack of studies in primary care, lack of relevant information and the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 4.6; 95% CI 2.4, 9.0, P<0.001). Accuracy was compared for (a) in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (26 evaluations; 23,169 lesions and 1664 melanomas) versus visual inspection alone (13 evaluations; 6740 lesions and 459 melanomas) and for (b) image-based evaluations of dermoscopy (60 evaluations; 13,475 lesions and 2851 melanomas) versus image-based visual inspection (11 evaluations; 1740 lesions and 305 melanomas). For both comparisons, meta-analysis found dermoscopy to be more accurate than visual inspection alone, with RDORs of (a) 4.7 (95% CI: 3.0 to 7.5; P < 0.001) and (b) 5.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 8.5; P < 0.001). These effects correspond to predicted differences in sensitivity of (a) 16% (95% CI: 8%, 23%) (92% for dermoscopy+visual inspection vs 76% for visual inspection) and (b) 35% (95% CI 24% to 46%) (81% for dermoscopy vs 47% for visual inspection) at a fixed specificity of 80%; and topredicted differences in specificity of (a) 20% (95% CI 7%, 33) (95% for dermoscopy plus visual inspection vs 75% for visual inspection) and (b) 40% (95% CI 27, 57) (82% for dermoscopy vs 42% for visual inspection) at a fixed sensitivity of 80%. Using the median prevalence of disease in each set of studies ((a) 12% for in-person and (b) 24% for image-based) for a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, an increase in sensitivity of (a) 16% (in-person) and (b) 35% (image-based) from using dermoscopy at a fixed specificity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of melanomas missed of (a) 19 and (b) 81 with (a) 176 and (b) 152 false positive results. An increase in specificity of (a) 20% (in-person) and (b) 40% (image-based) at a fixed sensitivity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of unnecessary excisions from using dermoscopy of (a) 176 and (b) 304 with (a) 24 and (b) 48 melanomas missed. The use of a named or published algorithm to assist dermoscopy interpretation (as opposed to no reported algorithm or reported use of pattern analysis) had no significant impact on accuracy either for in-person (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.34, 5.6; P=0.17) or image-based (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60, 3.3; P=0.22) evaluations. This result was supported by subgroup analysis according to algorithm used. Higher accuracy for observers reported as having high experience and for those classed as ‘expert consultants’ in comparison to those considered to have less experience in dermoscopy was observed, particularly for image-based evaluations. Evidence for the effect of dermoscopy training on test accuracy was very limited but suggested associated improvements in sensitivity. Authors' conclusions: Despite the observed limitations in the evidence base, dermoscopy is a valuable tool to support the visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion for the detection of melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, particularly in referred populations and in the hands of experienced users. Data to support its use in primary care is limited however it may assist in triaging suspicious lesions for urgent referral when employed by suitably trained clinicians. Formal algorithms may be of most use for dermoscopy training purposes and for less expert observers, however reliable data comparing approaches using dermoscopy in-person are lacking

The use of teledermatology for the diagnosis of skin cancer in adults

Background: Early accurate detection of all skin cancer types is essential to guide appropriate management and to improve morbidity and survival. Melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are high risk skin cancers which have the potential to metastasise and ultimately lead to death, whereas basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually localised with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue. Anxiety around missing early curable cases needs to be balanced against inappropriate referral and unnecessary excision of benign lesions. Teledermatology provides a way for generalist clinicians to access the opinion of a specialist dermatologist for skin lesions that they consider to be suspicious without referring the patients concerned through the normal referral pathway. Teledermatology consultations can be ‘store-and-forward’ with electronic digital images of a lesion sent to a dermatologist for review at a later time, or can be live and interactive consultations using video conferencing to connect the patient, referrer and dermatologist in real time. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of teledermatology for the detection of any skin cancer (melanoma, BCC or cSCC) in adults, and to compare its accuracy with that of in-person diagnosis. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies evaluating skin cancer diagnosis for teledermatology alone, or in comparison with face-to-face diagnosis by a specialist clinician, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up and expert opinion. Studies evaluating the referral accuracy of teledermatology compared with a reference standard of face-to-face diagnosis by a specialist clinician were also included. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition of any skin cancer was missing. Data permitting, we estimated summary sensitivities and specificities using the bivariate hierarchical model. Due to scarcity of data, no covariate investigations were undertaken for this review. For illustrative purposes, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were plotted on coupled forest plots for diagnostic threshold and target condition under consideration. Main results: Twenty-two studies were included reporting diagnostic accuracy data for 4057 lesions and 879 malignant cases (16 studies) and referral accuracy data for reported data for 1449 lesions and 270 ‘positive’ cases as determined by the reference standard face-to-face decision (six studies). Methodological quality was variable with poor reporting hindering assessment. The overall risk of bias was rated as high or unclear for participant selection, reference standard and participant flow and timing in at least half of all studies; the majority were considered at low risk of bias for the index test. The applicability of study findings were of high or unclear concern for the majority of studies in all domains assessed due to the recruitment of study participants from secondary care settings or specialist clinics rather than from the primary or community-based settings in which teledermatology is more likely to be used and due to the acquisition of lesion images by dermatologists or in specialist imaging units rather than by primary care clinicians. Seven studies provided data for the primary target condition of any skin cancer (1588 lesions and 638 malignancies). For the correct diagnosis of lesions as malignant using photographic images, summary sensitivity was 94.9% (95% CI 90.1 to 97.4%) and summary specificity 84.3% (95% CI 48.5 to 96.8%) (from four studies). Individual study estimates using dermoscopic images or a combination of photographic and dermoscopic images generally suggested similarly high sensitivities with highly variable specificities. Limited comparative data suggested similar diagnostic accuracy between teledermatology assessment and in-person diagnosis by a dermatologist; however, data were too scarce to draw firm conclusions. For the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants both sensitivities and specificities were more variable. Sensitivities ranged from 59% (95% CI 42% to 74%) to 100% (95% CI 54% to 100%) and specificities from 30% (95% CI 22% to 40%) to 100% (95% CI 93% to 100%), with reported diagnostic thresholds including the correct diagnosis of melanoma, classification of lesions as ‘atypical’ or ‘typical as well as the decision to refer or to excise a lesion. Referral accuracy data comparing teledermatology against a face-to-face reference standard suggested good agreement for lesions considered to require some positive action by face to face assessment (sensitivities of over 90%). For lesions considered of less concern when assessed face-to-face (e.g. for those not recommended for excision or referral), agreement was more variable with teledermatology specificities ranging from 57% (95% CI 39 to 73%) to 100% (95% CI 86% to 100%), suggesting that remote assessment is more likely recommend excision, referral or follow-up compared to in-person decisions. Authors' conclusions: Studies were generally small and heterogeneous and methodological quality was difficult to judge due to poor reporting. Bearing in mind concerns regarding the applicability of study participants and of lesion image acquisition in specialist settings, our results suggest that teledermatology can correctly identify the majority of malignant lesions. Using a more widely defined threshold to identify ‘possibly’ malignant cases or lesions that should be considered for excision is likely to appropriately triage those lesions requiring face-to-face assessment by a specialist. Despite the increasing use of teledermatology on an international level, the evidence base to support its ability to accurately diagnose lesions and to triage lesions from primary to secondary care is lacking and further prospective and pragmatic evaluation is needed

Smartphone applications for triaging adults with skin lesions that are suspicious for melanoma

Background: Melanoma accounts for a small proportion of all skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer-related deaths. Early detection and treatment can improve survival. Smartphone applications are readily accessible and potentially offer an instant risk assessment of the likelihood of malignancy, so that the right people seek further medical attention from a clinician for more detailed assessment of the lesion. There is, however, a risk that melanomas will be missed and treatment delayed if the application reassures the user that their lesion is low risk. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone applications to rule out cutaneous invasive melanoma and intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with concerns about suspicious skin lesions. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies of any design evaluating smartphone applications intended for use by individuals in a community setting who have lesions that might be suspicious for melanoma or intraepidermal melanocytic variants compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up and expert opinion. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). Due to scarcity of data and poor quality of studies, no meta-analysis was undertaken for this review. For illustrative purposes, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were plotted on coupled forest plots for each application under consideration. Main results: This review reports on two cohorts of lesions published in two studies. Both studies were at high risk of bias from selective participant recruitment, and high rates of non-evaluable images. Concerns about applicability of findings were high due to inclusion only of lesions already selected for excision in a dermatology clinic setting, and image acquisition by clinicians rather than by smartphone app users. Data for five mobile phone applications were reported for 332 suspicious skin lesions with 86 melanomas across the two studies. Across the four artificial intelligence-based applications which classified lesion images (photographs) as melanomas (one application) or as high risk or ‘problematic’ lesions (three applications) using a pre-programmed algorithm, sensitivities ranged from 7% (95% CI: 2%, 16%) to 73% (95% CI: 52%, 88%) and specificities from 37% (95% CI: 29% to 46%) to 94% (95% CI: 87%, 97%). The single application using store-and-forward review of lesion images by a dermatologist had a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI: 90%, 100%) and specificity 30% (95% CI: 22%, 40%). The number of test failures (lesion images analysed by the applications but classed as ‘not evaluable’ and excluded by the study authors) ranged from 3 to 31 (or 2% to 18% of lesions analysed). The store-and-forward application had one of the highest rates of test failure (15%). At least one melanoma was classed as ‘not evaluable’ in three of the four application evaluations. Authors' conclusions: Smartphone applications using artificial intelligence-based analysis have not yet demonstrated sufficient promise in terms of accuracy, and are associated with a high likelihood of missing melanomas. Applications based on store-and-forward images could have a potential role in the timely presentation of people with potentially malignant lesions by facilitating active self-management health practices and early engagement of those with suspicious skin lesions; however, they may incur a significant increase in resource and workload. Given the paucity of evidence and low methodological quality, no implications for practice can be drawn. Nevertheless, this is a rapidly advancing field and new and better applications with robust reporting of studies could change these conclusions substantially

Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for the diagnosis of melanoma in adults

Background: Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Although history-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician are usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer, dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist diagnosis by specialist clinicians and is increasingly used in primary care settings. Dermoscopy is a magnification technique using visible light that allows more detailed examination of the skin compared to examination by the naked eye alone. Establishing the additive value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection alone across a range of observers and settings is critical to understanding its contribution for the diagnosis of melanoma and to future understanding of the potential role of the growing number of other highresolution image analysis techniques. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults, and to compare its accuracy with that of visual inspection alone. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies of any design that evaluated dermoscopy in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data on the accuracy of visual inspection, to allow comparisons of tests, was included only if reported in the included studies of dermoscopy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary ROC methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; observer expertise; and dermoscopy training. Main results: A total of 104 study publications reporting on 103 study cohorts with 42,788 lesions (including 5700 cases) were included, providing 354 datasets for dermoscopy. The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test and reference standard domains and mainly high or unclear for participant selection and participant flow. Concerns regarding the applicability of study findings were largely scored as ‘High’ concern in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic. The accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants was reported in 86 datasets; 26 for evaluations conducted in-person (dermoscopy added to visual inspection) and 60 for image-based evaluations (diagnosis based on interpretation of dermoscopic images). Analyses of studies by prior testing revealed no obvious effect on accuracy; analyses were hampered by the lack of studies in primary care, lack of relevant information and the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 4.6; 95% CI 2.4, 9.0, P<0.001). Accuracy was compared for (a) in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (26 evaluations; 23,169 lesions and 1664 melanomas) versus visual inspection alone (13 evaluations; 6740 lesions and 459 melanomas) and for (b) image-based evaluations of dermoscopy (60 evaluations; 13,475 lesions and 2851 melanomas) versus image-based visual inspection (11 evaluations; 1740 lesions and 305 melanomas). For both comparisons, meta-analysis found dermoscopy to be more accurate than visual inspection alone, with RDORs of (a) 4.7 (95% CI: 3.0 to 7.5; P < 0.001) and (b) 5.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 8.5; P < 0.001). These effects correspond to predicted differences in sensitivity of (a) 16% (95% CI: 8%, 23%) (92% for dermoscopy+visual inspection vs 76% for visual inspection) and (b) 35% (95% CI 24% to 46%) (81% for dermoscopy vs 47% for visual inspection) at a fixed specificity of 80%; and topredicted differences in specificity of (a) 20% (95% CI 7%, 33) (95% for dermoscopy plus visual inspection vs 75% for visual inspection) and (b) 40% (95% CI 27, 57) (82% for dermoscopy vs 42% for visual inspection) at a fixed sensitivity of 80%. Using the median prevalence of disease in each set of studies ((a) 12% for in-person and (b) 24% for image-based) for a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, an increase in sensitivity of (a) 16% (in-person) and (b) 35% (image-based) from using dermoscopy at a fixed specificity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of melanomas missed of (a) 19 and (b) 81 with (a) 176 and (b) 152 false positive results. An increase in specificity of (a) 20% (in-person) and (b) 40% (image-based) at a fixed sensitivity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of unnecessary excisions from using dermoscopy of (a) 176 and (b) 304 with (a) 24 and (b) 48 melanomas missed. The use of a named or published algorithm to assist dermoscopy interpretation (as opposed to no reported algorithm or reported use of pattern analysis) had no significant impact on accuracy either for in-person (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.34, 5.6; P=0.17) or image-based (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60, 3.3; P=0.22) evaluations. This result was supported by subgroup analysis according to algorithm used. Higher accuracy for observers reported as having high experience and for those classed as ‘expert consultants’ in comparison to those considered to have less experience in dermoscopy was observed, particularly for image-based evaluations. Evidence for the effect of dermoscopy training on test accuracy was very limited but suggested associated improvements in sensitivity. Authors' conclusions: Despite the observed limitations in the evidence base, dermoscopy is a valuable tool to support the visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion for the detection of melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, particularly in referred populations and in the hands of experienced users. Data to support its use in primary care is limited however it may assist in triaging suspicious lesions for urgent referral when employed by suitably trained clinicians. Formal algorithms may be of most use for dermoscopy training purposes and for less expert observers, however reliable data comparing approaches using dermoscopy in-person are lacking

Visual inspection for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in adults

Background: Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. History-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician is usually the first in a series of ‘tests’ to diagnose skin cancer. Establishing the accuracy of visual inspection alone is critical to understating the potential contribution of additional tests to assist in the diagnosis of melanoma. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with limited prior testing and in those referred for further evaluation of a suspicious lesion. Studies were separated according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated visual inspection in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of, either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Studies reporting data for ‘clinical diagnosis’ where dermoscopy may or may not have been used were excluded. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. We investigated the impact of: in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; and observer expertise. Main results: Forty-nine publications reporting on a total of 51 study cohorts with 34,351 lesions (including 2499 cases) were included, providing 134 datasets for visual inspection. Across almost all study quality domains, insufficient information was provided in the majority of study reports to allow the risk of bias to be judged, while concerns regarding applicability of study findings were scored as ‘High’ in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of detail regarding the threshold for deciding on a positive test result, and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic. Attempts to analyse studies by degree of prior testing were hampered by a lack of relevant information and by the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was generally much higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio of 8.54, 95% CI 2.89, 25.3, P<0.001). Meta-analysis of in-person evaluations that could be clearly placed on the clinical pathway showed a general trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, with the highest sensitivity (92.4%, 95% CI 26.2, 99.8%) and lowest specificity (79.7%, 95% CI 73.7, 84.7%) observed in participants with limited prior testing (n = 3 datasets). Summary sensitivities were lower for those referred for specialist assessment but with much higher specificities (e.g. sensitivity 76.7% (95% CI 61.7, 87.1%) and specificity 95.7% (95% CI 89.7, 98.3%) for lesions selected for excision, n = 8 datasets). These differences may be related to differences in the spectrum of included lesions, differences in the definition of a positive test result, or to variations in observer expertise. We did not find clear evidence that accuracy is improved by the use of any algorithm to assist diagnosis in all settings. Attempts to examine the effect of observer expertise in melanoma diagnosis were hindered due to poor reporting. Authors' conclusions: Visual inspection is a fundamental component of the assessment of a suspicious skin lesion; however, the evidence suggests that melanomas will be missed if visual inspection is used on its own. The evidence to support its accuracy in the range of settings in which it is used is flawed and very poorly reported. Although published algorithms do not appear to improve accuracy, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the ‘no algorithm’ approach should be preferred in all settings. Despite the volume of research evaluating visual inspection, further prospective evaluation of the potential added value of using established algorithms according to the prior testing or diagnostic difficulty of lesions may be warranted

High frequency ultrasound for the diagnosis of skin cancer in adults

Background: Early accurate detection of all skin cancer types is essential to guide appropriate management and to improve morbidity and survival. Melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) are high risk skin cancers which have the potential to metastasise and ultimately lead to death, whereas basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually localised with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue. Anxiety around missing early curable cases needs to be balanced against inappropriate referral and unnecessary excision of benign lesions. Ultrasound is a non-invasive imaging technique which relies on the measurement of sound wave reflections from the tissues of the body. At lower frequencies, the deeper structures of the body such as the internal organs can be visualised, while high frequency ultrasound (HFUS) with transducer frequencies of at least 20MHz, has a much lower depth of tissue penetration but produces a higher resolution image of tissues and structures closer to the skin surface. Used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic examination of suspected skin cancer, or both, HFUS may offer additional diagnostic information compared to other technologies. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HFUS to assist in the diagnosis of (a) melanoma and intraepidermal melanocytic variants, (b) cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), and (c) basal cell carcinoma (BCC) in adults. Search methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. Selection criteria: Studies evaluating HFUS (>= 20 MHz) in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, cSCC or BCC, compared with a reference standard of histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). Due to scarcity of data and poor quality of studies, no meta-analysis was undertaken for this review. For illustrative purposes, estimates of sensitivity and specificity were plotted on coupled forest plots. Main results: Six studies were included, providing 29 datasets, 20 for diagnosis of melanoma (1125 lesions and 242 melanomas) and 9 for diagnosis of BCC (993 lesions and 119 BCCs). No data relating to the diagnosis of cSCC were identified. Studies were generally poorly reported limiting judgements of methodological quality. Half of studies did not set out to establish test accuracy and all should be considered preliminary evaluations of the potential usefulness of HFUS. There were particularly high concerns for applicability of findings due to selective study populations and data driven thresholds for test positivity. Studies reporting qualitative assessments of HFUS images excluded up to 22% of lesions (including some melanomas) due to them not being visualised by the test. Derived sensitivities for qualitative HFUS characteristics were at least 83% (95% CI 75% to 90%) for the detection of melanoma; the combination of three features (lesions appearing hypoechoic, homogenous and well defined) demonstrating 100% sensitivity in two studies, with variable corresponding specificities of 33% (95% CI 20% to 48%) and 73% (95% CI 57% to 85%) (Lower limits of the 95% CIs for sensitivities were 94% and 82% respectively). Quantitative measurement of HFUS outputs in two studies enabled decision thresholds to be set to achieve 100% sensitivity; specificities were 93% (95% CI 77% to 99%) and 65% (95% CI 51% to 76%). It was not possible to make summary statements regarding HFUS accuracy for the diagnosis of BCC due to highly variable sensitivities and specificities. Authors' conclusions: Insufficient data are available on the potential value of HFUS in the diagnosis of melanoma or BCC. Given the between study heterogeneity, unclear to low methodological quality and limited volume of evidence, no implications for practice can be drawn. The main value of the preliminary studies included may be in provision of guidance on the possible components of future diagnostic rules for diagnosis of melanoma or BCC using HFUS that require future evaluation. A prospective evaluation of HFUS added to visual inspection and dermoscopy alone in a standard health care setting with a clearly defined and representative population of participants would be required for a full and proper evaluation of accuracy