RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Early detection of melanoma is crucial to improving the detection of thin curable melanomas. Noninvasive, computer-assisted methods have been developed to use at the bedside to aid in diagnoses but have not been compared directly in a clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a prospective diagnostic accuracy study comparing a dermatologist's clinical examination at the bedside, teledermatology, and noninvasive imaging techniques (FotoFinder, MelaFind, and Verisante Aura). METHODS: A total of 184 patients were recruited prospectively from an outpatient dermatology clinic, with lesions imaged, assessed, and excised. Skin specimens were assessed by 2 blinded pathologists, providing the gold standard comparison. RESULTS: Fifty-nine lesions from 56 patients had a histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma, whereas 150 lesions from 128 patients were diagnosed as benign. Sensitivities and specificities were, respectively, MelaFind (82.5%, 52.4%), Verisante Aura (21.4%, 86.2%), and FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro (88.1%, 78.8%). The sensitivity and specificity of the teledermoscopist (84.5% and 82.6%, respectively) and local dermatologist (96.6% and 32.2%, respectively) were also compared. LIMITATIONS: There are inherent limitations in using pathology as the gold standard to compare sensitivities and specificities. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that the highest sensitivity and specificity of the instruments were established with the FotoFinder Moleanalyzer Pro, which could be a valuable tool to assist with, but not replace, clinical decision making.
