Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Confocal Microscopy in the Diagnosis of Skin Cancer

A. Rahman, S. Miller
{"title":"Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Accuracy of Confocal Microscopy in the Diagnosis of Skin Cancer","authors":"A. Rahman, S. Miller","doi":"10.17303/JCRTO.2015.3.104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Nonmelanoma skin cancer (Basal Cell Cancer (BCC) and Squamous Cell Cancer (SCC)) are the most prevalent cancer in the light-skinned population. The incidence of melanoma has been increasing steadily throughout the world. Early recognition of skin cancer without doing biopsy remains challenging. The development of noninvasive diagnostic technologies is highly relevant and desired. Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) enables in vivo and ex vivo imaging of human skin at a quasi-histologic resolution. Methods and Materials: Several databases like Medline, Embase, all EBM reviews (ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Journals@Ovid were used to perform a literature search on CLSM in the diagnosis of melanoma and non melanoma skin cancers. Standards for Reporting of Diagnosis Accuracy (STARD) initiative checklist and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on methodology were used to assess the quality of the studies found. Eight studies fulfilling relevant criteria inclusive of assessment of diagnostic accuracy of CSLM and histopathology were selected. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed and the data was pooled for meta- analysis. Results: The eight included studies did not have considerable heterogeneity between them. The pooled sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis was 91.4% and for BCC diagnosis was 90.1%. Pooled specificities were 79.9% and 92.6% for malignant melanoma and BCC respectively. Diagnostic odds ratios for melanoma and BCC were 80.1 and 358.1 respectively. Conclusions: From the limited good quality available literature we found that CLSM has the potential to be an additional noninvasive diagnostic test to dermoscopy for the diagnosis of BCC and melanoma.","PeriodicalId":22619,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Cancer Research","volume":"93 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Cancer Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17303/JCRTO.2015.3.104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Nonmelanoma skin cancer (Basal Cell Cancer (BCC) and Squamous Cell Cancer (SCC)) are the most prevalent cancer in the light-skinned population. The incidence of melanoma has been increasing steadily throughout the world. Early recognition of skin cancer without doing biopsy remains challenging. The development of noninvasive diagnostic technologies is highly relevant and desired. Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) enables in vivo and ex vivo imaging of human skin at a quasi-histologic resolution. Methods and Materials: Several databases like Medline, Embase, all EBM reviews (ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) and Journals@Ovid were used to perform a literature search on CLSM in the diagnosis of melanoma and non melanoma skin cancers. Standards for Reporting of Diagnosis Accuracy (STARD) initiative checklist and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on methodology were used to assess the quality of the studies found. Eight studies fulfilling relevant criteria inclusive of assessment of diagnostic accuracy of CSLM and histopathology were selected. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed and the data was pooled for meta- analysis. Results: The eight included studies did not have considerable heterogeneity between them. The pooled sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis was 91.4% and for BCC diagnosis was 90.1%. Pooled specificities were 79.9% and 92.6% for malignant melanoma and BCC respectively. Diagnostic odds ratios for melanoma and BCC were 80.1 and 358.1 respectively. Conclusions: From the limited good quality available literature we found that CLSM has the potential to be an additional noninvasive diagnostic test to dermoscopy for the diagnosis of BCC and melanoma.
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
共聚焦显微镜诊断皮肤癌准确性的系统评价和荟萃分析
背景:非黑色素瘤皮肤癌(基底细胞癌(BCC)和鳞状细胞癌(SCC))是浅色皮肤人群中最常见的癌症。在世界范围内,黑色素瘤的发病率一直在稳步上升。在不做活检的情况下早期识别皮肤癌仍然具有挑战性。无创诊断技术的发展是高度相关和迫切需要的。共聚焦激光扫描显微镜(CLSM)能够在准组织学分辨率下对人体皮肤进行体内和离体成像。方法和材料:使用Medline、Embase、所有EBM综述(ACP Journal Club、Cochrane对照试验Register、Cochrane系统综述数据库、疗效综述摘要数据库)和Journals@Ovid等数据库进行CLSM在黑色素瘤和非黑色素瘤皮肤癌诊断中的文献检索。使用诊断准确性报告标准(standard of Reporting of Diagnosis Accuracy,简称STARD)倡议清单和国家健康与临床卓越研究所(National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence,简称NICE)方法学指南来评估所发现研究的质量。8项研究符合相关标准,包括评估CSLM的诊断准确性和组织病理学。评估研究间的异质性,并收集资料进行meta分析。结果:纳入的8项研究之间没有明显的异质性。黑素瘤诊断的总敏感性为91.4%,BCC诊断的总敏感性为90.1%。恶性黑色素瘤和BCC的合并特异性分别为79.9%和92.6%。黑素瘤和BCC的诊断优势比分别为80.1和358.1。结论:从有限的高质量文献中,我们发现CLSM有潜力成为皮肤镜诊断BCC和黑色素瘤的一种额外的无创诊断测试。
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
Assessment of alternative approaches of primary cervical cancer screening among women in low-income environments Impact of an Educational Program on Sexual Dysfunction Associated With Cervical Cancer Self-Knowledge among Women with Cervical Cancer Open the Therapeutic Revolution Door of Antiviral Antitumor by Improving Systemic Non-Specific Immunity A Case of Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia (Ph+AML) of Primary Drug Resistance and Relevant Literature Review
×
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