Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology: A Systematic Review of Its Applications in Melanoma and Keratinocyte Carcinoma Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Limited access to dermatologic care may pose an obstacle to the early detection and intervention of cutaneous malignancies. The role of artificial intelligence (AI) in skin cancer diagnosis may alleviate potential care gaps. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to offer an in-depth exploration of published AI algorithms trained on dermoscopic and macroscopic clinical images for the diagnosis of melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). METHODS: Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, a systematic review was conducted on peer-reviewed articles published between January 1, 2000, and January 26, 2023. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Among the 232 studies in this review, the overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of AI for tumor detection averaged 90%, 87%, and 91%, respectively. Model performance improved with time. Despite seemingly impressive performance, the paucity of external validation and limited representation of cSCC and skin of color in the data sets limits the generalizability of the current models. In addition, dermatologists coauthored only 12.9% of all studies included in the review. Moving forward, it is imperative to prioritize robustness in data reporting, inclusivity in data collection, and interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure the development of equitable and effective AI tools.

Antimalarials are not Effective as Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19: A Retrospective Matched Control Study.

The early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a repurposing of antiviral and immunomodulatory drugs as investigational therapeutics, including hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. While antimalarials have been well-refuted as a treatment for COVID-19, data on these drugs' role in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection as pre-exposure prophylaxis is more limited. We investigated the efficacy of antimalarial drugs as pre-exposure SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis in a US tertiary-care center. We identified all adult patients exposed to antimalarials with active prescriptions from July 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020 and exact-matched antimalarial-treated study patients with controls on age, sex, race, and Charleston Comorbidity Index. We used multivariable logistic regression to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of COVID-19 diagnosis by antimalarial exposure, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, local infection rates, and specific conditions identified in early studies as risk factors for COVID-19. There were 3,074 patients with antimalarial prescriptions and 58,955 matched controls. Hydroxychloroquine represented 98.8% of antimalarial prescriptions. There were 51 (1.7%) infections among antimalarial-exposed and 973 (1.6%) among controls. No protective effect for SARS-CoV-2 infection was demonstrated among antimalarial-exposed patients in the multivariate model (OR=1.06, 95% CI 0.80-1.40, P=0.70). These findings corroborate prior work demonstrating that hydroxychloroquine and related antimalarials do not have a role in protection against SARS-CoV-2.Klebanov N, Pahalyants V, Said JT, et al. Antimalarials are not effective as pre-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19: a retrospective matched control study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(8):840-843. doi:10.36849/JDD.6593.

Epidemiology and risk factors for the development of cutaneous toxicities in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors: A United States population-level analysis.

BACKGROUND: A variety of dermatoses have been reported in the growing number of patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but the current understanding of cutaneous immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cumulative incidence, distribution, and risk factors of cutaneous irAEs after ICI initiation. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in a national insurance claims database including cancer patients treated with ICIs and matched controls. RESULTS: The study included 8637 ICI patients and 8637 matched controls. The overall incidence of cutaneous irAEs was 25.1%, with a median onset time of 113 days. The ICI group had a significantly higher incidence of pruritus, mucositis, erythroderma, maculopapular eruption, vitiligo, lichen planus, bullous pemphigoid, Grover disease, rash, other nonspecific eruptions, and drug eruption or other nonspecific drug reaction. Patients with melanoma and renal cell carcinoma and those receiving combination therapy were at a higher risk of cutaneous irAEs. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design without access to patient chart data. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies cutaneous irAEs in a real-world clinical setting and highlights patient groups that are particularly at risk. The results can aid dermatologists at the bedside in the diagnosis of cutaneous irAEs and in formulating management recommendations to referring oncologists regarding the continuation of ICI therapy.

Risk of COVID-19 in Patients with Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) among patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 1,545 patients with cancer treated with ICIs between July 1, 2019, and February 29, 2020, and 20,418 age-, sex-, and cancer category-matched controls in a large referral hospital system. Confirmed COVID-19 case and mortality data were obtained with Massachusetts Department of Public Health from March 1 through June 19, 2020. RESULTS: The mean age was 66.6 years, and 41.9% were female. There were 22 (1.4%) and 213 (1.0%) COVID-19 cases in the ICI and control groups, respectively. When adjusting for demographics, medical comorbidities, and local infection rates, ICIs did not increase COVID-19 susceptibility. CONCLUSION: ICIs did not increase the rate of COVID-19. This information may assist patients and their oncologists in decision-making surrounding cancer treatment during this pandemic.

Evaluation of electronic consults for outpatient pediatric patients with dermatologic complaints.

BACKGROUND: Although dermatologic complaints are frequently encountered by pediatricians, access to pediatric dermatologists remains limited. Teledermatology has been proposed to expand access to dermatologic care for children. We report our experience with a physician-to-physician store-and-forward teledermatology service (eConsults), focusing on patient and consult characteristics and their relationship with teledermatologist confidence and follow-up recommendations as well as clinical outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed electronic health records of all pediatric patients referred through eConsults at the Massachusetts General Hospital from 1/13/2020 to 7/17/2020. We assessed pediatrician and parental receptiveness with a confidential survey. RESULTS: A total of 302 referrals (median patient age 4.6 years (IQR 0.6-12); 54% female) and 310 cases were completed in 1.8 days on average (SD = 1.2). Teledermatologists rated their confidence as definite and moderate in 51.3% and 39.4% cases, respectively. Teledermatologists felt comfortable managing rashes remotely, but patients with alopecia, pigmented and vascular lesions, and warts frequently required formal dermatology evaluation. Among patients seen subsequently, full concordance was seen for 70.1% of diagnoses and 74.4% of management recommendations. All responding pediatricians were satisfied with the service, and 97.5% felt that the parents were receptive to it. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the growing evidence that store-and-forward teledermatology can quickly and effectively provide the access to pediatric dermatologic care and is well received by pediatricians and parents. To maximize cost-effectiveness of store-and-forward teledermatology, dermatologists should work with referring providers to improve the quality of submitted photographs and patient history as well as advise in-person referrals for cases likely to require further follow-up.

Validity and Reliability of the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale for Children Aged 4 to 17 Years With Acute Pain.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The Verbal Numerical Rating Scale is the most commonly used self-report measure of pain intensity. It is unclear how the validity and reliability of the scale scores vary across children's ages. We aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the scale for children presenting to the emergency department across a comprehensive spectrum of age. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of children aged 4 to 17 years. Children self-reported their pain intensity, using the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale and Faces Pain Scale-Revised at 2 serial assessments. We evaluated convergent validity (strong validity defined as correlation coefficient ≥0.60), agreement (difference between concurrent Verbal Numerical Rating Scale and Faces Pain Scale-Revised scores), known-groups validity (difference in score between children with painful versus nonpainful conditions), responsivity (decrease in score after analgesic administration), and reliability (test-retest at 2 serial assessments) in the total sample and subgroups based on age. RESULTS: We enrolled 760 children; 27 did not understand the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale and were removed. Of the remainder, Pearson correlations were strong to very strong (0.62 to 0.96) in all years of age except 4 and 5 years, and agreement was strong for children aged 8 and older. Known-groups validity and responsivity were strong in all years of age. Reliability was strong in all age subgroups, including each year of age from 4 to 7 years. CONCLUSION: Convergent validity, known-groups validity, responsivity, and reliability of the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale were strong for children aged 6 to 17 years. Convergent validity was not strong for children aged 4 and 5 years. Our findings support the use of the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale for most children aged 6 years and older, but not for those aged 4 and 5 years.

Development and Pilot Testing of a Computerized Asthma Kiosk to Initiate Chronic Asthma Care in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) visits are an opportunity to initiate chronic asthma care. Ideally, this care should be implemented in a fashion that limits utilization of scarce ED resources. We developed, iteratively refined, and pilot tested the feasibility of a computerized asthma kiosk to (1) capture asthma information, (2) deliver asthma education, and (3) facilitate guideline-based chronic asthma management. METHODS: The following are the 4 phases of this study: (1) developing the content and structure of a computerized asthma kiosk, (2) iterative refinement through heuristic testing by human-computer interface experts, (3) usability testing with ED providers (n = 4) and caregivers of children with asthma (n = 4), and (4) pilot testing the kiosk with caregivers (n = 31) and providers in the ED (n = 18). Outcome measures for the pilot-testing phase were the proportion of ED providers who prescribed long-term controller medication (LTCM) and asthma action plans (AsAPs) and the proportion of children who took LTCMs and attended primary care providers follow-up. RESULTS: After kiosk development and refinement, pilot implementation resulted in LTCMs prescribing and AsAP provision for 19 (61%) of 31 and 17 (55%) of 31 patients, respectively. Before kiosk use, the proportion of the 18 ED providers who reported prescribing LTCM was 1 (5%) of 18, and providing AsAPs was 0 (0%) of 18. Eighteen (58%) of the 31 caregivers reported that their children used LTCMs after kiosk use and 13 (42%) of 31 reported following up with the primary care provider within 1 month of the ED visits. CONCLUSIONS: A rigorously developed asthma kiosk showed promise for initiating chronic asthma care in the ED.

Mobile Health Technology to Communicate Discharge and Follow-Up Information to Adolescents From the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: Adolescents are the largest users of mobile technology; yet, there are little data regarding their receptivity to the use of mobile health technology (mHealth) from the emergency department (ED). The objective of this study was to determine adolescents' preferences for receiving ED discharge and follow-up information via mHealth and factors associated with those preferences. METHODS: We administered an anonymous self-reporting survey to patients aged 14 to 19 years discharged from an urban pediatric ED. We conducted exploratory bivariate analyses to evaluate differences in communication preferences based on patient characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether preference for health information via mHealth is associated with frequent information technology (IT) use, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and insurance status. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-nine adolescents completed the survey. Most were female (n = 279, 64%), 14 to 17 years old (n = 247, 57%), Hispanic (n = 359, 86%), and insured (n = 388, 88%). Adolescents used IT often, texting more than 30 times a day (58%) and emailing more than once a day (61%). Most (n = 335, 78%) were interested in electronic communication from the ED. Teens expressed particular interest in using email for discharge instructions (n = 196, 47%), physician referrals (n = 197, 48%), and test results (n = 201, 48%) and using texting for medication (n = 155, 38%) and appointment reminders (n = 170, 41%). Individuals tended to prefer communication with IT modes that they typically used, although only email was independently associated with preference for this mode (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Adolescent patients are interested in receiving health information from the ED, mainly via email and texting. Future ED interventions should evaluate the effectiveness of these modalities to communicate with patients after discharge.

High-volume facilities are significantly more likely to use guideline-adherent systemic immunotherapy for metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma: implications for cancer care regionalization.

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a neuroendocrine skin cancer with a high rate of mortality. While still relatively rare, the incidence of MCC has been rapidly rising in the US and around the world. Since 2017, two immunotherapeutic drugs, avelumab and pembrolizumab, have been FDA-approved for the treatment of metastatic MCC and have revolutionized outcomes for MCC. However, real-world outcomes can differ from clinical trial data, and the adoption of novel therapeutics can be gradual. We aimed to characterize the treatment practices and outcomes of patients with metastatic MCC across the US. A retrospective cohort study of adult cases of MCC in the National Cancer Database diagnosed from 2004 to 2019 was performed. Multivariable logistic regressions to determine the association of a variety of patient, tumor, and system factors with likelihood of receipt of systemic therapies were performed. Univariate Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox survival regressions were performed. We identified 1017 cases of metastatic MCC. From 2017 to 2019, 54.2% of patients received immunotherapy. This increased from 45.1% in 2017 to 63.0% in 2019. High-volume centers were significantly more likely to use immunotherapy (odds ratio 3.235, p = 0.002). On univariate analysis, patients receiving systemic immunotherapy had significantly improved overall survival (p < 0.001). One-, 3-, and 5-year survival was 47.2% (standard error [SE] 1.8%), 21.8% (SE 1.5%), and 16.5% (SE 1.4%), respectively, for patients who did not receive immunotherapy versus 62.7% (SE 3.5%), 34.4% (SE 3.9%), and 23.6% (SE 4.4%), respectively, for those who did (Fig. 1). In our multivariable survival regression, receipt of immunotherapy was associated with an approximately 35% reduction in hazard of death (hazard ratio 0.665, p < 0.001; 95% CI 0.548-0.808). Our results demonstrate that the real-world survival advantage of immunotherapy for metastatic MCC is similar to clinical trial data. However, many patients with metastatic disease did not receive this guideline-recommended therapy in our most recent study year, and use of immunotherapy is higher at high-volume centers. This suggests that regionalization of care to high-volume centers or dissemination of their practices, may ultimately improve patient survival.

Current State of Dermatology Mobile Applications With Artificial Intelligence Features.

Importance: With advancements in mobile technology and artificial intelligence (AI) methods, there has been a substantial surge in the availability of direct-to-consumer mobile applications (apps) claiming to aid in the assessment and management of diverse skin conditions. Despite widespread patient downloads, these apps exhibit limited evidence supporting their efficacy. Objective: To identify and characterize current English-language AI dermatology mobile apps available for download, focusing on aspects such as purpose, supporting evidence, regulatory status, clinician input, data privacy measures, and use of image data. Evidence Review: In this cross-sectional study, both Apple and Android mobile app stores were systematically searched for dermatology-related apps that use AI algorithms. Each app's purpose, target audience, evidence-based claims, algorithm details, data availability, clinician input during development, and data usage privacy policies were evaluated. Findings: A total of 909 apps were initially identified. Following the removal of 518 duplicates, 391 apps remained. Subsequent review excluded 350 apps due to nonmedical nature, non-English languages, absence of AI features, or unavailability, ultimately leaving 41 apps for detailed analysis. The findings revealed several concerning aspects of the current landscape of AI apps in dermatology. Notably, none of the apps were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and only 2 of the apps included disclaimers for the lack of regulatory approval. Overall, the study found that these apps lack supporting evidence, input from clinicians and/or dermatologists, and transparency in algorithm development, data usage, and user privacy. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study determined that although AI dermatology mobile apps hold promise for improving access to care and patient outcomes, in their current state, they may pose harm due to potential risks, lack of consistent validation, and misleading user communication. Addressing challenges in efficacy, safety, and transparency through effective regulation, validation, and standardized evaluation criteria is essential to harness the benefits of these apps while minimizing risks.

Real-world incidence and impact of pneumonitis in patients with lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a multi-institutional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have improved survival and are increasingly used for non-small cell lung cancer. However, use may be limited by immune-related adverse events such as checkpoint-inhibitor pneumonitis (CIP). Literature estimates for CIP incidence are inconsistent. Real-world adherence to guidelines, clinical course, and healthcare utilization in the treatment of CIP has not been described in large cohorts. METHODS: A combined claims and electronic health record database (TriNetX) was used to identify 13,113 patients with lung cancer treated with programmed cell death receptor/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) inhibitors, and a propensity score-matched control cohort treated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies. The attributable risk of CIP was calculated in the first 12 months after therapy by comparing the incidence of diagnosis codes for pneumonitis/pneumonia between cohorts. Cases of CIP, identified by the most specific code for drug-induced respiratory conditions, were further analyzed for medication usage, rates of diagnostic bronchoscopy, ICI discontinuation rates, and usage of hospital services compared with patients receiving PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors who did not develop CIP. RESULTS: The attributable risk of pneumonitis to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was 2.49% (95% CI, 1.50% to 3.47%). Median time to onset in the CIP subcohort was 3.9 months (IQR, 2.1-7.3 months). Steroid and antibiotic use increased dramatically after a pneumonitis diagnosis, and 70.2% of patients permanently discontinued ICI therapy. Compared with controls, patients with CIP had more than a threefold increased risk of needing critical care (relative risk 3.59, 95% CI, 2.31 to 5.57) and an increased risk of mortality (HR 2.34, 95% CI, 1.47 to 3.71). CONCLUSIONS: In a large claims-based analysis, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors increase the risk of pneumonitis in patients with lung cancer by 2.49%. Cases of CIP are associated with high healthcare utilization, discontinuation of ICIs, and mortality.

Association of Cutaneous Immune-Related Adverse Events With Increased Survival in Patients Treated With Anti-Programmed Cell Death 1 and Anti-Programmed Cell Death Ligand 1 Therapy.

IMPORTANCE: Despite the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) occur in 20% to 40% of all treated patients. To our knowledge, little is known about the predictive value of these cutaneous eruptions and their subtypes regarding cancer survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of developing cirAEs following treatment with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy with patient survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the TriNetX Diamond Network, a database of health records and claims data from more than 200 million US and European patients, to conduct a population-level cohort analysis. The study included 7008 eligible patients who developed cirAEs after treatment with anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy for malignant neoplasms of digestive organs, bronchus or lung, melanoma of skin, and urinary tract who were identified through the TriNetX Diamond Network along with 7008 matched controls. EXPOSURES: Development of cirAEs within 6 months following anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A 6-month analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model was performed to determine the association of cirAEs with overall survival after adjusting for demographic characteristics, cancer type, and cancer stage. RESULTS: A total of 7008 patients (3036 women [43.3%]; mean [SD] age, 68.2 [11.2] years) were matched to 7008 (3044 women [43.4%]; mean [SD] age, 68.3 [11.1] years) controls. Pruritus (hazard ratio [HR], 0.695; 95% CI, 0.602-0.803; P < .001), drug eruption (HR, 0.755; 95% CI, 0.635-0.897; P = .001), xerosis (HR, 0.626; 95% CI, 0.469-0.834; P = .001), nonspecific rashes (HR, 0.704; 95% CI, 0.634-0.781; P < .001), and appearance of any cirAE (HR, 0.778; 95% CI, 0.726-0.834; P < .001) were significantly protective of mortality using a Benjamini-Hochberg correction with a significance level of .05. Additionally, psoriasis (HR, 0.703; 95% CI, 0.497-0.994; P = .045) and lichen planus/lichenoid dermatitis (HR, 0.511; 95% CI, 0.279-0.939; P = .03) were significant. Eczematous dermatitis (HR, 0.612; 95% CI, 0.314-1.195), vitiligo (HR, 0.534; 95% CI, 0.254-1.123), bullous pemphigoid (HR, 0.524; 95% CI, 0.140-1.956), and Grover disease (HR, 0.468; 95% CI, 0.115-1.898) were all associated with strong protective clinical effects. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this cohort study suggest that the development of cirAEs is strongly associated with response to ICI therapy and patient survival.

Prediction of severe immune-related adverse events requiring hospital admission in patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors: study of a population level insurance claims database from the USA.

BACKGROUND: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are a serious side effect of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy for patients with advanced cancer. Currently, predisposing risk factors are undefined but understanding which patients are at increased risk for irAEs severe enough to require hospitalization would be beneficial to tailor treatment selection and monitoring. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with cancer treated with ICIs using unidentifiable claims data from an Aetna nationwide US health insurance database from January 3, 2011 to December 31, 2019, including patients with an identified primary cancer and at least one administration of an ICI. Regression analyses were performed. Main outcomes were incidence of and factors associated with irAE requiring hospitalization in ICI therapy. RESULTS: There were 68.8 million patients identified in the national database, and 14 378 patients with cancer identified with at least 1 administration of ICI in the study period. Patients were followed over 19 117 patient years and 504 (3.5%) developed an irAE requiring hospitalization. The incidence of irAEs requiring hospitalization per patient ICI treatment year was 2.6%, rising from 0% (0/71) in 2011 to 3.7% (93/2486) in 2016. Combination immunotherapy (OR: 2.44, p<0.001) was associated with increased odds of developing irAEs requiring hospitalization, whereas older patients (OR 0.98 per additional year, p<0.001) and those with non-lung cancer were associated with decreased odds of irAEs requiring hospitalization (melanoma OR: 0.70, p=0.01, renal cell carcinoma OR: 0.71, p=0.03, other cancers OR: 0.50, p<0.001). Sex, region, zip-code-imputed income, and zip-code unemployment were not associated with incidence of irAE requiring hospitalization. Prednisone (72%) and methylprednisolone (25%) were the most common immunosuppressive treatments identified in irAE hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: We found that 3.5% of patients initiating ICI therapy experienced irAEs requiring hospitalization and immunosuppression. The odds of irAEs requiring hospitalization were higher with younger age, treatment with combination ICI therapy (cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated 4 and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)), and lower for other cancers compared with patients on PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitors with lung cancer. This evidence from the first nationwide study of irAEs requiring hospitalization in the USA identified the real-world epidemiology, risk factors, and treatment patterns of these irAEs which may guide treatment and management decisions.