Utilizing Data from Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Significantly Improves the Decision to Biopsy Pigmented Skin Lesions Beyond Clinical Evaluation and Dermoscopy

D. Zakria, Nicholas Brownstone, Klaus Fritz, Carmen Salavastru, Darrell S Rigel
{"title":"Utilizing Data from Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Significantly Improves the Decision to Biopsy Pigmented Skin Lesions Beyond Clinical Evaluation and Dermoscopy","authors":"D. Zakria, Nicholas Brownstone, Klaus Fritz, Carmen Salavastru, Darrell S Rigel","doi":"10.25251/skin.8.3.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Even the most experienced dermatologists may forego a biopsy on as many as one-third of malignant melanomas (MMs). Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a noninvasive technology that send a painless, very low voltage electrical current through a pigmented lesion to determine if it is benign or malignant. This study aimed to determine if EIS data can improve the decision to biopsy a pigmented lesion even beyond dermoscopy. \nMethods: A survey with 49 images of MMs, severe dysplastic nevi (SDNs), and benign pigmented skin lesions (PSLs) was shown to dermatologists at a national conference. They were asked if they would biopsy the lesion after first seeing the clinical image, then again after seeing the dermoscopic image, and again after receiving the EIS score. \nResults: 151 dermatologists completed the survey. Respondents significantly increased correct biopsy decisions (biopsy MMs and SDNs and forego biopsy of benign PSLs) with the addition of dermoscopy versus clinical image alone for MM (78.5% vs. 56.2%, p<0.01) and SDN (62.7% vs. 43.8%, p<0.01). Participants also demonstrated a statistically significant increase in correct biopsy decisions beyond the dermoscopic evaluation when integrating the EIS score for MM (86.2% vs. 78.9%, p<0.01), SDN (68.1% vs. 62.7%, p<0.05) and benign lesions (58.7% vs. 48.0% vs, p<0.01). \nConclusion: EIS was able to further improve the rate of correct biopsy choice for MMs and SDNs even beyond dermoscopic evaluation. While dermoscopy worsened diagnostic accuracy for benign PSLs, EIS results were able to significantly improve decision making for these lesions as well. This study demonstrates the clinical utility of EIS technology for improving melanoma diagnosis.","PeriodicalId":22013,"journal":{"name":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","volume":"7 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.3.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Even the most experienced dermatologists may forego a biopsy on as many as one-third of malignant melanomas (MMs). Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a noninvasive technology that send a painless, very low voltage electrical current through a pigmented lesion to determine if it is benign or malignant. This study aimed to determine if EIS data can improve the decision to biopsy a pigmented lesion even beyond dermoscopy. Methods: A survey with 49 images of MMs, severe dysplastic nevi (SDNs), and benign pigmented skin lesions (PSLs) was shown to dermatologists at a national conference. They were asked if they would biopsy the lesion after first seeing the clinical image, then again after seeing the dermoscopic image, and again after receiving the EIS score. Results: 151 dermatologists completed the survey. Respondents significantly increased correct biopsy decisions (biopsy MMs and SDNs and forego biopsy of benign PSLs) with the addition of dermoscopy versus clinical image alone for MM (78.5% vs. 56.2%, p<0.01) and SDN (62.7% vs. 43.8%, p<0.01). Participants also demonstrated a statistically significant increase in correct biopsy decisions beyond the dermoscopic evaluation when integrating the EIS score for MM (86.2% vs. 78.9%, p<0.01), SDN (68.1% vs. 62.7%, p<0.05) and benign lesions (58.7% vs. 48.0% vs, p<0.01). Conclusion: EIS was able to further improve the rate of correct biopsy choice for MMs and SDNs even beyond dermoscopic evaluation. While dermoscopy worsened diagnostic accuracy for benign PSLs, EIS results were able to significantly improve decision making for these lesions as well. This study demonstrates the clinical utility of EIS technology for improving melanoma diagnosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在临床评估和皮肤镜检查之外,利用电阻抗能谱数据可显著改善对色素性皮肤病进行活检的决定
背景:即使是最有经验的皮肤科医生也可能会放弃对多达三分之一的恶性黑色素瘤(MM)进行活组织检查。电阻抗光谱(EIS)是一种无创技术,它能通过色素病变发出无痛、电压极低的电流,以确定病变是良性还是恶性。本研究旨在确定 EIS 数据是否能改善对色素性病变进行活检的决定,甚至超过皮肤镜检查。研究方法在一次全国性会议上向皮肤科医生展示了一份调查表,其中包含 49 幅 MMs、严重发育不良痣 (SDN) 和良性色素性皮肤病变 (PSL) 的图像。他们被问及在第一次看到临床图像后是否会对病变进行活组织检查,在看到皮肤镜图像后是否会再次进行活组织检查,在得到 EIS 评分后是否会再次进行活组织检查。结果:151 名皮肤科医生完成了调查。对于 MM(78.5% 对 56.2%,P<0.01)和 SDN(62.7% 对 43.8%,P<0.01),受访者做出正确活检决定(对 MM 和 SDN 进行活检,并放弃对良性 PSL 进行活检)的比例明显高于仅使用临床图像的比例。对于 MM(86.2% vs. 78.9%,p<0.01)、SDN(68.1% vs. 62.7%,p<0.05)和良性病变(58.7% vs. 48.0% vs,p<0.01),在整合 EIS 评分后,参与者在皮肤镜评估之外做出正确活检决定的比例也有统计学意义的显著提高。结论EIS 能够进一步提高 MM 和 SDN 活检选择的正确率,甚至超过皮肤镜评估。虽然皮肤镜检查会降低良性 PSL 的诊断准确性,但 EIS 的结果也能显著改善这些病变的决策。这项研究证明了 EIS 技术在改善黑色素瘤诊断方面的临床实用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Off-Label Uses of Upadacitinib Stability of Long-Term Therapeutic Responses to Tralokinumab in Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis What Do Clinicians Mean When Submitting a Biopsy as “Rule Out Eczema” Deucravacitinib in Plaque Psoriasis: Maintenance of Response Over 4 Years in the Phase 3 POETYK PSO-1, PSO-2, and LTE Trials Zosteriform Atrophoderma of Pasini and Pierini: A Case Report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1