Inequalities in the patterns of dermoscopy use and training across Europe: conclusions of the Eurodermoscopy pan-European survey.

BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy is a widely used technique, recommended in clinical practice guidelines worldwide for the early diagnosis of skin cancers. Intra-European disparities are reported for early detection and prognosis of skin cancers, however, no information exists about regional variation in patterns of dermoscopy use across Europe. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the regional differences in patterns of dermoscopy use and training among European dermatologists. MATERIALS & METHODS: An online survey of European-registered dermatologists regarding dermoscopy training, practice and attitudes was established. Answers from Eastern (EE) versus Western European (WE) countries were compared and their correlation with their respective countries' gross domestic product/capita (GDPc) and total and government health expenditure/capita (THEc and GHEc) was analysed. RESULTS: We received 4,049 responses from 14 WE countries and 3,431 from 18 EE countries. A higher proportion of WE respondents reported dermoscopy use (98% vs. 77%, p<0.001) and training during residency (43% vs. 32%) or anytime (96.5% vs. 87.6%) (p<0.001) compared to EE respondents. The main obstacles in dermoscopy use were poor access to dermoscopy equipment in EE and a lack of confidence in one's skills in WE. GDPc, THEc and GHEc correlated with rate of dermoscopy use and dermoscopy training during residency (Spearman rho: 0.5-0.7, p<0.05), and inversely with availability of dermoscopy equipment. CONCLUSION: The rates and patterns of dermoscopy use vary significantly between Western and Eastern Europe, on a background of economic inequality. Regionally adapted interventions to increase access to dermoscopy equipment and training might enhance the use of this technique towards improving the early detection of skin cancers.

What do Australian dermatologists expect to be paid for store-and-forward teledermoscopy? A preliminary investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Determining appropriate remuneration for teledermoscopy service is important because inadequate remuneration can be a barrier to practitioner uptake and participation. This study explores dermatologist remuneration expectations for a single lesion store-and-forward teledermoscopy consultation. METHODS: Fourteen dermatologists participated in telephone interviews during May-June 2017. Questions regarding remuneration focused on a clinical scenario involving teledermoscopy of a single lesion suspected to be skin cancer. The initial scenario was an existing patient, with a provisional diagnosis of benign neoplasm from the images, to be followed-up with routine skin checks, taking three minutes to review. Participants indicated their remuneration expectation by selecting from an ascending array of pre-determined remuneration ranges. The question was repeated a further four times with one aspect of the scenario changed each time; consultation length, source (patient or general practitioner), required follow-up, and a new rather than existing patient. Participants were also asked how appropriate they thought teledermoscopy was for the scenario, and whether they would choose to undertake the consultation presented. RESULTS: Nine dermatologists selected the AU$61-90 or AU$91-120 remuneration ranges for the initial scenario. When given the opportunity to comment on teledermoscopy service provision in Australia, respondents reflected that it was a valuable, advanced dermatology service, but they would prefer face-to-face consultation with patients where possible to allow for a full body examination. DISCUSSION: Dermatologists expect to be remunerated in the range of AU$61-120 for a single lesion store-and-forward teledermoscopy consultation when face-to-face examination is not possible.

Reflectance confocal microscopy of skin in vivo: From bench to bedside.

Following more than two decades of effort, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging of skin was granted codes for reimbursement by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Dermatologists in the USA have started billing and receiving reimbursement for the imaging procedure and for the reading and interpretation of images. RCM imaging combined with dermoscopic examination is guiding the triage of lesions into those that appear benign, which are being spared from biopsy, against those that appear suspicious, which are then biopsied. Thus far, a few thousand patients have been spared from biopsy of benign lesions. The journey of RCM imaging from bench to bedside is certainly a success story, but still much more work lies ahead toward wider dissemination, acceptance, and adoption. We present a brief review of RCM imaging and highlight key challenges and opportunities. The success of RCM imaging paves the way for other emerging optical technologies, as well-and our bet for the future is on multimodal approaches. Lasers Surg. Med. 49:7-19, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in melanoma detection: A transition model applied to dermoscopy.

AIM: The main aim of this study is to demonstrate how our melanoma disease model (MDM) can be used for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) in the melanoma detection field. In particular, we used the data of two cohorts of Belgian melanoma patients to investigate the cost-effectiveness of dermoscopy. METHODS: A MDM, previously constructed to calculate the melanoma burden, was slightly modified to be suitable for CEAs. Two cohorts of patients entered into the model to calculate morbidity, mortality and costs. These cohorts were constituted by melanoma patients diagnosed by dermatologists adequately, or not adequately, trained in dermoscopy. Effectiveness and costs were calculated for each cohort and compared. Effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), a composite measure depending on melanoma-related morbidity and mortality. Costs included costs of treatment and follow-up as well as costs of detection in non-melanoma patients and costs of excision and pathology of benign lesions excised to rule out melanoma. RESULTS: The result of our analysis concluded that melanoma diagnosis by dermatologists adequately trained in dermoscopy resulted in both a gain of QALYs (less morbidity and/or mortality) and a reduction in costs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how our MDM can be used in CEAs in the melanoma detection field. The model and the methodology suggested in this paper were applied to two cohorts of Belgian melanoma patients. Their analysis concluded that adequate dermoscopy training is cost-effective. The results should be confirmed by a large-scale randomised study.

VivaScope® 1500 and 3000 systems for detecting and monitoring skin lesions: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is one of the most common cancers in the UK. The main risk factor is exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight or the use of sunbeds. Patients with suspicious skin lesions are first examined with a dermoscope. After examination, those with non-cancerous lesions are discharged, but lesions that are still considered clinically suspicious are surgically removed. VivaScope(®) is a non-invasive technology designed to be used in conjunction with dermoscopy to provide a more accurate diagnosis, leading to fewer biopsies of benign lesions or to provide more accurate presurgical margins reducing the risk of cancer recurrence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of VivaScope(®) 1500 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA; Lucid Inc., Rochester, NY, USA; or Lucid Inc., MAVIG GmbH, Munich, Germany) and VivaScope(®) 3000 (Caliber Imaging and Diagnostics, Rochester, NY, USA) in the diagnosis of equivocal skin lesions, and VivaScope 3000 in lesion margin delineation prior to surgical excision of lesions. DATA SOURCES: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library) were searched on 14 October 2014, reference lists of included papers were assessed and clinical experts were contacted for additional information on published and unpublished studies. METHODS: A systematic review was carried out to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies evaluating dermoscopy plus VivaScope, or VivaScope alone, with histopathology as the reference test. A probabilistic de novo economic model was developed to synthesise the available data on costs and clinical outcomes from the UK NHS perspective. All costs were expressed as 2014 prices. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in the review, but they were too heterogeneous to be combined in a meta-analysis. One of two diagnostic studies that were deemed most representative of UK clinical practice reported that dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 was significantly more sensitive than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of melanoma (97.8% vs. 94.6%; p = 0.043) and significantly more specific than dermoscopy alone in the diagnosis of non-melanoma (92.4% vs. 26.74%; p < 0.000001). The results of another study suggest 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 86.16% to 100%] sensitivity for dermoscopy plus VivaScope 1500 versus 100% (95% CI 91.51% to 100%) for dermoscopy alone. Specificity varied from 51.77% to 80.2% depending on the analysis set used. In terms of margin delineation with VivaScope, one study found that 17 out of 29 patients with visible lentigo maligna (LM) had subclinical disease of > 5 mm beyond the dermoscopically identified margin. Using 'optimistic' diagnostic data, the economic model resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £8877 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) (£9362 per QALY), while the 'less favourable' diagnostic data resulted in an ICER of £19,095 per QALY (£25,453 per QALY) in the diagnosis of suspected melanomas. VivaScope was also shown to be a dominant strategy when used for the diagnostic assessment of suspected basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Regarding margin delineation of LM, mapping with VivaScope was cost-effective, with an ICER of £10,241 per QALY (£11,651 per QALY). However, when VivaScope was used for diagnosis as well as mapping of LM, then the intervention cost was reduced and VivaScope became a dominant strategy. LIMITATIONS: There is an absence of UK data in the included studies and, therefore, generalisability of the results to the UK population is unclear. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VivaScope appears to be a cost-effective strategy in the diagnostic assessment of equivocal melanomas and BCCs, and in margin delineation of LM prior to surgical treatment. FUTURE WORK: High-quality RCTs are required in a UK population to assess the diagnostic accuracy of VivaScope in people with equivocal lesions. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014433. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-benefit of reflectance confocal microscopy in the diagnostic performance of melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The sub-optimal diagnostic accuracy for melanoma leads to excise a high number of benign lesions, with consequent costs. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) improves diagnostic specificity, thus possibly inducing a reduction in unnecessary excisions and related costs. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the influence of RCM on number of benign lesions needed to excise (NNE) a melanoma, in term of clinical outcomes and costs per patient. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Skin neoplasms excised by the dermatology public service in the Province of Modena were retrieved form centralized pathology database. Differences in NNE between the territorial service (using dermoscopy only) and the University Hospital (adding also RCM to the patients' workflow) were calculated and cost analysis was performed through a micro-costing approach. RESULTS: A large reduction in benign lesions excised at University Hospital was evident, leading to NNE of 6.25 for University Hospital, compared to 19.41 for Territorial Dermatology. Since 4320 unnecessary excisions can be saved every million inhabitants, an overall yearly saving of over 280,000 Eur can be expected from the use of RCM. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic use of RCM was dramatically affecting the number of benign lesions excised, and this can be translated in a significant cost-benefit advantage.

Melanoma and other skin lesion detection using smart handheld devices.

Smartphones of the latest generation featuring advanced multicore processors, dedicated microchips for graphics, high-resolution cameras, and innovative operating systems provide a portable platform for running sophisticated medical screening software and delivering point-of-care patient diagnostic services at a very low cost. In this chapter, we present a smartphone digital dermoscopy application that can analyze high-resolution images of skin lesions and provide the user with feedback about the likelihood of malignancy. The same basic procedure has been adapted to evaluate other skin lesions, such as the flesh-eating bacterial disease known as Buruli ulcer. When implemented on the iPhone, the accuracy and speed achieved by this application are comparable to that of a desktop computer, demonstrating that smartphone applications can combine portability and low cost with high performance. Thus, smartphone-based systems can be used as assistive devices by primary care physicians during routine office visits, and they can have a significant impact in underserved areas and in developing countries, where health-care infrastructure is limited.

Diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of dermoscopy in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the DA and cost-effectiveness of the dermoscope in primary care for skin lesions suspected of malignancy. METHODS: In a cluster randomized clinical trial, 48 Dutch general practices were randomized to either intervention group using a dermoscope or control group using only naked-eye examination. A total of 194 lesions from 170 patients in the intervention group and 222 lesions from 211 patients in the control group were analysed for DA and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The percentage of correctly diagnosed lesions in intervention group and control group was 50.5% and 40.5% respectively. This was 61.5% and 22.2% for melanomas. In the intervention group, three malignancies were treated with the expectative treatment option compared to none in the control group. The odds ratio (OR) of a correct diagnosis in the intervention group, compared to control group, was 1.51 (95% CI: 0.96­2.37) P = 0.07. Consequently, the relative risk was 1.25. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €89 (95% CI −€60 to €598), indicating that using a dermoscope costs an additional €89 for one additional correctly diagnosed patient. Additional analyses showed better effects of dermoscopy compared to the control group for 98% of the bootstrap resamples. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of a correct diagnosis was 1.25 times higher using a dermoscope than without a dermoscope. Although this difference is marginally not statistically significant, dermoscopy in general practice appears to be cost effective. We therefore think that GPs should be trained to use a dermoscope, although they should realize that even with the use of a dermoscope not all lesions will be diagnosed correctly.

Utility of dermoscopy for demarcation of surgical margins in Mohs micrographic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the most common malignancy and can be treated in various ways. One treatment modality is Mohs micrographic surgery. Due to the increasing incidence of skin cancer in the last decades, there is a need for improvement of the Mohs technique to optimize its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of dermoscopy to guide demarcation of Mohs micrographic surgery margins and ascertain whether this method can reduce operative time and, therefore, reduce surgical morbidity and cost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The sample comprised 44 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery, allocated into two groups: the control group and the intervention group. In the latter, surgical margins were guided by dermoscopy. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups by chi-square analysis (p = 0.399). CONCLUSION: Although outcomes were similar in the two groups, demonstrating that dermoscopy does not help in the demarcation of surgical margins for Mohs micrographic surgery, the study provides a practical proposal for improvement of the Mohs technique.

Utility of dermoscopy for demarcation of surgical margins in Mohs micrographic surgery

BACKGROUND: Skin cancer is the most common malignancy and can be treated in various ways. One treatment modality is Mohs micrographic surgery. Due to the increasing incidence of skin cancer in the last decades, there is a need for improvement of the Mohs technique to optimize its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of dermoscopy to guide demarcation of Mohs micrographic surgery margins and ascertain whether this method can reduce operative time and, therefore, reduce surgical morbidity and cost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The sample comprised 44 patients who underwent Mohs micrographic surgery, allocated into two groups: the control group and the intervention group. In the latter, surgical margins were guided by dermoscopy. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups by chi-square analysis (p = 0.399). CONCLUSION: Although outcomes were similar in the two groups, demonstrating that dermoscopy does not help in the demarcation of surgical margins for Mohs micrographic surgery, the study provides a practical proposal for improvement of the Mohs technique. .

The light and the dark of dermatoscopy in the early diagnosis of melanoma: facts and controversies.

Early diagnosis remains the best method to reduce melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer-related mortality and morbidity. Dermatoscopy was first introduced at the end of the last century, and besides the strict criticism that it initially received, the majority of the scientific community presently considers it revolutionary in the field of melanocytic lesion diagnostics. Cumulative evidence provides definite data that dermatoscopy improves the clinicians' diagnostic accuracy for melanoma compared with other clinical diagnostic approaches. There remain some barriers for its use such as lack of training, lack of time, and lack of reimbursement, as well as persisting skepticism about its true utility. In the current contribution, we focus on false beliefs and facts concerning dermatoscopy in the early diagnosis of melanoma and shed some light on some of the remaining "dark sides" of this issue.

The cost-effectiveness of a novel SIAscopic diagnostic aid for the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care: a decision-analytic model.

OBJECTIVES: Pigmented skin lesions are commonly presented in primary care. Appropriate diagnosis and management is challenging because the vast majority are benign. The MoleMate system is a handheld SIAscopy scanner integrated with a primary care diagnostic algorithm aimed at improving the management of pigmented skin lesions in primary care. METHODS: This decision-model-based economic evaluation draws on the results of a randomized controlled trial of the MoleMate system versus best practice (ISRCTN79932379) to estimate the expected long-term cost and health gain of diagnosis with the MoleMate system versus best practice in an English primary care setting. The model combines trial results with data from the wider literature to inform long-term prognosis, health state utilities, and cost. RESULTS: Results are reported as mean and incremental cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio with probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and value of information analysis. Over a lifetime horizon, the MoleMate system is expected to cost an extra £18 over best practice alone, and yield an extra 0.01 QALYs per patient examined. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is £1,896 per QALY gained, with a 66.1% probability of being below £30,000 per QALY gained. The expected value of perfect information is £43.1 million. CONCLUSIONS: Given typical thresholds in the United Kingdom (£20,000-£30,000 per QALY), the MoleMate system may be cost-effective compared with best practice diagnosis alone in a primary care setting. However, there is considerable decision uncertainty, driven particularly by the sensitivity and specificity of MoleMate versus best practice, and the risk of disease progression in undiagnosed melanoma; future research should focus on reducing uncertainty in these parameters.

Accuracy of SIAscopy for pigmented skin lesions encountered in primary care: development and validation of a new diagnostic algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing pigmented skin lesions in general practice is challenging. SIAscopy has been shown to increase diagnostic accuracy for melanoma in referred populations. We aimed to develop and validate a scoring system for SIAscopic diagnosis of pigmented lesions in primary care. METHODS: This study was conducted in two consecutive settings in the UK and Australia, and occurred in three stages: 1) Development of the primary care scoring algorithm (PCSA) on a sub-set of lesions from the UK sample; 2) Validation of the PCSA on a different sub-set of lesions from the same UK sample; 3) Validation of the PCSA on a new set of lesions from an Australian primary care population. Patients presenting with a pigmented lesion were recruited from 6 general practices in the UK and 2 primary care skin cancer clinics in Australia. The following data were obtained for each lesion: clinical history; SIAscan; digital photograph; and digital dermoscopy. SIAscans were interpreted by an expert and validated against histopathology where possible, or expert clinical review of all available data for each lesion. RESULTS: A total of 858 patients with 1,211 lesions were recruited. Most lesions were benign naevi (64.8%) or seborrhoeic keratoses (22.1%); 1.2% were melanoma. The original SIAscopic diagnostic algorithm did not perform well because of the higher prevalence of seborrhoeic keratoses and haemangiomas seen in primary care. A primary care scoring algorithm (PCSA) was developed to account for this. In the UK sample the PCSA had the following characteristics for the diagnosis of 'suspicious': sensitivity 0.50 (0.18-0.81); specificity 0.84 (0.78-0.88); PPV 0.09 (0.03-0.22); NPV 0.98 (0.95-0.99). In the Australian sample the PCSA had the following characteristics for the diagnosis of 'suspicious': sensitivity 0.44 (0.32-0.58); specificity 0.95 (0.93-0.97); PPV 0.52 (0.38-0.66); NPV 0.95 (0.92-0.96). In an analysis of lesions for which histological diagnosis was available (n = 111), the PCSA had a significantly greater Area Under the Curve than the 7-point checklist for the diagnosis of melanoma (0.83; 95% CI 0.71-0.95 versus 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.78; p = 0.02 for difference). CONCLUSIONS: The PCSA could have a useful role in improving primary care management of pigmented skin lesions. Further work is needed to develop and validate the PCSA in other primary care populations and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of GP management of pigmented lesions using SIAscopy.

Teledermatoscopy as a triage system for pigmented lesions: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Skin-cancer screening should rely on simple, low-cost and high-sensitivity diagnostic procedures. AIMS: To compare diagnosis and management options after the evaluation of clinical and dermatoscopic teleconsultations with a store-and-forward teledermatology screening system for pigmented lesions. METHODS: Kappa values between telediagnoses and the gold standard (histological examination) were assessed. Referral rates, diagnostic confidence level (DCL), sensitivity and specificity were evaluated in both approaches. Picture quality and time and cost investments were also measured. In total, 61 teleconsultations were evaluated. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the clinical and dermatoscopic teleconsultations was 1 for both, whereas specificities were 0.65 and 0.78, respectively (P < 0.05). DCL was higher for the dermatoscopic teleconsultations (4.75 vs. 4.14, P < 0.05). Agreement between the clinical and dermatoscopic teleconsultation was kappa = 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.97). Agreement with the gold standard was 0.91 (95% CI 0.82-1.00) for the clinical teleconsultation and 0.94 (95% CI 0.88-1.00) for teledermatoscopy (P > 0.05). Teledermatoscopy increased the economic investment of a teledermatology facility by 2.4 times. The GP spent 1.5 times longer on dermatoscopic teleconsultations. CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatoscopy has improved the DCL, specificity and referral rates of a teledermatology-based screening system for pigmented lesions. A more detailed economic analysis remains to be performed before recommending teledermatoscopy as a routine screening procedure in pigmented-lesion clinics.