Clinical Utility of an AI-powered, Handheld Elastic Scattering Spectroscopy Device on the Diagnosis and Management of Skin Cancer by Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Patients with lesions suspicious for skin cancer often present to primary care physicians (PCPs), who may have limited training in skin cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To measure the impact of an adjunctive handheld device for PCPs that employs elastic scattering spectroscopy (ESS) on the diagnosis and management of skin cancer. METHODS: Fifty-seven PCPs evaluated 50 clinical images of skin lesions (25 malignant and 25 benign), first without and then with knowledge of the handheld ESS device output, and in each case indicated if a lesion was likely to be benign or malignant. RESULTS: The diagnostic sensitivity of the PCPs with and without the use of the ESS device was 88% (95% CI, 84%-92%) and 67% (95% CI, 62%-72%), respectively (P < .0001). In contrast, no significant difference was observed in the diagnostic specificity. The management sensitivity of the physicians with and without the use of the ESS device was 94% (95% CI, 91%-96%) and 81% (95% CI, 77%-85%), respectively (P = .0009). Similarly, no significant difference was observed in the management specificity. CONCLUSION: The use of the ESS device may have the potential to help improve skin cancer diagnosis and confidence in management decision-making in a primary care setting.

Long-term outcomes from dose-escalated image-guided intensity-modulated radiotherapy with androgen deprivation: encouraging results for intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated (DE) radiotherapy in the setting of localized prostate cancer has been shown to improve biochemical disease-free survival (bDFS) in several studies. In the same group of patients, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) has been shown to confer a survival benefit when combined with radiotherapy doses of up to 70 Gy; however, there is currently little long-term data on patients who have received high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) with ADT. We report the long-term outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with the combination of DE image-guided IMRT (IG-IMRT) and ADT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with localized prostate cancer were identified from a centralized database across an integrated cancer center. All patients received DE IG-IMRT, combined with ADT, and had a minimum follow up of 12 months post-radiotherapy. All relapse and toxicity data were collected prospectively. Actuarial bDFS, metastasis-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and multivariate analyses were calculated using the SPSS v20.0 statistical package. RESULTS: Seven hundred and eighty-two eligible patients were identified with a median follow up of 46 months. Overall, 4.3% of patients relapsed, 2.0% developed distant metastases, and 0.6% died from metastatic prostate cancer. At 5-years, bDFS was 88%, metastasis-free survival was 95%, and prostate cancer-specific survival was 98%. Five-year grade 2 genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity was 2.1% and 3.4%, respectively. No grade 3 or 4 late toxicities were reported. Pretreatment prostate specific antigen (P=0.001) and Gleason score (P=0.03) were significant in predicting biochemical failure on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: There is a high probability of tumor control with DE IG-IMRT combined with androgen deprivation, and this is a technique with a low probability of significant late toxicity. Our long term results corroborate the safety and efficacy of treating with IG-IMRT to high doses and compares favorably with published series for the treatment of prostate cancer.