74
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Algorithm based smartphone apps to assess risk of skin cancer in adults: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To examine the validity and findings of studies that examine the accuracy of algorithm based smartphone applications (“apps”) to assess risk of skin cancer in suspicious skin lesions.

          Design

          Systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies.

          Data sources

          Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CPCI, Zetoc, Science Citation Index, and online trial registers (from database inception to 10 April 2019).

          Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

          Studies of any design that evaluated algorithm based smartphone apps to assess images of skin lesions suspicious for skin cancer. Reference standards included histological diagnosis or follow-up, and expert recommendation for further investigation or intervention. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed validity using QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool). Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were reported for each app.

          Results

          Nine studies that evaluated six different identifiable smartphone apps were included. Six verified results by using histology or follow-up (n=725 lesions), and three verified results by using expert recommendations (n=407 lesions). Studies were small and of poor methodological quality, with selective recruitment, high rates of unevaluable images, and differential verification. Lesion selection and image acquisition were performed by clinicians rather than smartphone users. Two CE (Conformit Europenne) marked apps are available for download. No published peer reviewed study was found evaluating the TeleSkin skinScan app. SkinVision was evaluated in three studies (n=267, 66 malignant or premalignant lesions) and achieved a sensitivity of 80% (95% confidence interval 63% to 92%) and a specificity of 78% (67% to 87%) for the detection of malignant or premalignant lesions. Accuracy of the SkinVision app verified against expert recommendations was poor (three studies).

          Conclusions

          Current algorithm based smartphone apps cannot be relied on to detect all cases of melanoma or other skin cancers. Test performance is likely to be poorer than reported here when used in clinically relevant populations and by the intended users of the apps. The current regulatory process for awarding the CE marking for algorithm based apps does not provide adequate protection to the public.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42016033595.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification.

          To revise the staging system for cutaneous melanoma on the basis of data from an expanded American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) Melanoma Staging Database. The melanoma staging recommendations were made on the basis of a multivariate analysis of 30,946 patients with stages I, II, and III melanoma and 7,972 patients with stage IV melanoma to revise and clarify TNM classifications and stage grouping criteria. Findings and new definitions include the following: (1) in patients with localized melanoma, tumor thickness, mitotic rate (histologically defined as mitoses/mm(2)), and ulceration were the most dominant prognostic factors. (2) Mitotic rate replaces level of invasion as a primary criterion for defining T1b melanomas. (3) Among the 3,307 patients with regional metastases, components that defined the N category were the number of metastatic nodes, tumor burden, and ulceration of the primary melanoma. (4) For staging purposes, all patients with microscopic nodal metastases, regardless of extent of tumor burden, are classified as stage III. Micrometastases detected by immunohistochemistry are specifically included. (5) On the basis of a multivariate analysis of patients with distant metastases, the two dominant components in defining the M category continue to be the site of distant metastases (nonvisceral v lung v all other visceral metastatic sites) and an elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase level. Using an evidence-based approach, revisions to the AJCC melanoma staging system have been made that reflect our improved understanding of this disease. These revisions will be formally incorporated into the seventh edition (2009) of the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual and implemented by early 2010.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Variation of a test's sensitivity and specificity with disease prevalence.

            Anecdotal evidence suggests that the sensitivity and specificity of a diagnostic test may vary with disease prevalence. Our objective was to investigate the associations between disease prevalence and test sensitivity and specificity using studies of diagnostic accuracy. We used data from 23 meta-analyses, each of which included 10-39 studies (416 total). The median prevalence per review ranged from 1% to 77%. We evaluated the effects of prevalence on sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model for each meta-analysis, with prevalence as a covariate. We estimated the overall effect of prevalence by pooling the effects using the inverse variance method. Within a given review, a change in prevalence from the lowest to highest value resulted in a corresponding change in sensitivity or specificity from 0 to 40 percentage points. This effect was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for either sensitivity or specificity in 8 meta-analyses (35%). Overall, specificity tended to be lower with higher disease prevalence; there was no such systematic effect for sensitivity. The sensitivity and specificity of a test often vary with disease prevalence; this effect is likely to be the result of mechanisms, such as patient spectrum, that affect prevalence, sensitivity and specificity. Because it may be difficult to identify such mechanisms, clinicians should use prevalence as a guide when selecting studies that most closely match their situation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Prognostic factors for local recurrence, metastasis, and survival rates in squamous cell carcinoma of the skin, ear, and lip. Implications for treatment modality selection.

              We reviewed all studies since 1940 on the prognosis of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the skin and lip. The following variables are correlated with local recurrence and metastatic rates: (1) treatment modality, (2) prior treatment, (3) location, (4) size, (5) depth, (6) histologic differentiation, (7) histologic evidence of perineural involvement, (8) precipitating factors other than ultraviolet light, and (9) host immunosuppression. Local recurrences occur less frequently when SCC is treated by Mohs micrographic surgery. This local recurrence rate differential in favor of Mohs micrographic surgery holds true for primary SCC of the skin and lip (3.1% vs 10.9%), for ear SCC (5.3% vs 18.7%), for locally recurrent (previously treated) SCC (10% vs 23.3%), for SCC with perineural involvement (0% vs 47%), for SCC of size greater than 2 cm (25.2% vs 41.7%), and for SCC that is poorly differentiated (32.6% vs 53.6%).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: methodologist
                Role: senior methodologist
                Role: NIHR fellow in test evaluation and research fellow in cancer epidemiology
                Role: senior research fellow in biostatistics
                Role: information specialist
                Role: consultant dermatologist
                Role: associate professor of plastic and hand surgery
                Role: principal researcher in primary care cancer research
                Role: professor of dermato-epidemiology
                Role: professor of biostatistics
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2020
                10 February 2020
                : 368
                : m127
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
                [2 ]Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
                [3 ]NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [4 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
                [5 ]Department of Dermatology, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, UK
                [6 ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [7 ]Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK
                [8 ]Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
                [9 ]Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: J Deeks j.deeks@ 123456bham.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9963-2918
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1343-7335
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8850-1971
                Article
                frek052868
                10.1136/bmj.m127
                7190019
                32041693
                9e4830e8-bf61-4240-b803-bd3cf64ab870
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 December 2019
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article