Use of convolutional neural networks in skin lesion analysis using real world image and non-image data.

Background: Understanding performance of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for binary (benign vs. malignant) lesion classification based on real world images is important for developing a meaningful clinical decision support (CDS) tool. Methods: We developed a CNN based on real world smartphone images with histopathological ground truth and tested the utility of structured electronic health record (EHR) data on model performance. Model accuracy was compared against three board-certified dermatologists for clinical validity. Results: At a classification threshold of 0.5, the sensitivity was 79 vs. 77 vs. 72%, and specificity was 64 vs. 65 vs. 57% for image-alone vs. combined image and clinical data vs. clinical data-alone models, respectively. The PPV was 68 vs. 69 vs. 62%, AUC was 0.79 vs. 0.79 vs. 0.69, and AP was 0.78 vs. 0.79 vs. 0.64 for image-alone vs. combined data vs. clinical data-alone models. Older age, male sex, and number of prior dermatology visits were important positive predictors for malignancy in the clinical data-alone model. Conclusion: Additional clinical data did not significantly improve CNN image model performance. Model accuracy for predicting malignant lesions was comparable to dermatologists (model: 71.31% vs. 3 dermatologists: 77.87, 69.88, and 71.93%), validating clinical utility. Prospective validation of the model in primary care setting will enhance understanding of the model's clinical utility.

Lesion identification and malignancy prediction from clinical dermatological images.

We consider machine-learning-based lesion identification and malignancy prediction from clinical dermatological images, which can be indistinctly acquired via smartphone or dermoscopy capture. Additionally, we do not assume that images contain single lesions, thus the framework supports both focal or wide-field images. Specifically, we propose a two-stage approach in which we first identify all lesions present in the image regardless of sub-type or likelihood of malignancy, then it estimates their likelihood of malignancy, and through aggregation, it also generates an image-level likelihood of malignancy that can be used for high-level screening processes. Further, we consider augmenting the proposed approach with clinical covariates (from electronic health records) and publicly available data (the ISIC dataset). Comprehensive experiments validated on an independent test dataset demonstrate that (1) the proposed approach outperforms alternative model architectures; (2) the model based on images outperforms a pure clinical model by a large margin, and the combination of images and clinical data does not significantly improves over the image-only model; and (3) the proposed framework offers comparable performance in terms of malignancy classification relative to three board certified dermatologists with different levels of experience.

Implementation of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care at an Academic Center: Identifying Opportunities and Challenges.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can help clinicians proactively assess and manage their patients' symptoms. Despite known benefits, there is limited adoption of ePROs into routine clinical care as a result of workflow and technologic challenges. This study identifies oncologists' perspectives on factors that affect integration of ePROs into clinical workflows. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 16 oncologists from a large academic medical center, across diverse subspecialties and cancer types. Oncologists were asked how they currently use or could imagine using ePROs before, during, and after a patient visit. We used an inductive approach to thematically analyze these qualitative data. RESULTS: Results were categorized into the following three main themes: (1) selection and development of ePRO tool, (2) contextual drivers of adoption, and (3) patient-facing concerns. Respondents preferred diagnosis-based ePRO tools over more general symptom screeners. Although they noted information overload as a potential barrier, respondents described strong data visualization and ease of use as facilitators. Contextual drivers of oncologist adoption include identifying target early adopters, incentivizing uptake through use of ePRO data to support billing and documentation, and emphasizing benefits for patient care and efficiency. Respondents also indicated the need to focus on patient-facing issues, such as patient response rate, timing of survey distribution, and validity and reliability of responses. DISCUSSION: Respondents identified several barriers and facilitators to successful uptake of ePROs. Understanding oncologists' perspectives is essential to inform both practice-level implementation strategies and policy-level decisions to include ePROs in alternative payment models for cancer care.