Search

Line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT) is a new technology for skin cancer diagnostics. However, the interobserver agreement (IOA) of known image markers of keratinocyte carcinomas (KC), including basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), as well as precursors, SCC in situ (CIS) and actinic keratosis (AK), remains unexplored. This study determined IOA on the presence or absence of 10 key LC-OCT image markers of KC and precursors, among evaluators new to LC-OCT with different levels of dermatologic imaging experience. Secondly, the frequency and association between reported image markers and lesion types, was determined. Six evaluators blinded to histopathologic diagnoses, assessed 75 LC-OCT images of KC (21 SCC; 21 BCC), CIS (12), and AK (21). For each image, evaluators independently reported the presence or absence of 10 predefined key image markers of KCs and precursors described in an LC-OCT literature review. Evaluators were stratified by experience-level as experienced (3) or novices (3) based on previous OCT and reflectance confocal microscopy usage. IOA was tested for all groups, using Conger's kappa coefficient (κ). The frequency of reported image marker and their association with lesion-types, were calculated as proportions and odds ratios (OR), respectively. Overall IOA was highest for the image markers lobules (κ = 0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57;0.78) and clefting (κ = 0.63, CI 0.52;0.74), typically seen in BCC (94%;OR 143.2 and 158.7, respectively, p < 0.001), followed by severe dysplasia (κ = 0.42, CI 0.31;0.53), observed primarily in CIS (79%;OR 7.1, p < 0.001). The remaining seven image-markers had lower IOA (κ = 0.06-0.32) and were more evenly observed across lesion types. The lowest IOA was noted for a well-defined (κ = 0.07, CI 0;0.15) and interrupted dermal-epidermal junction (DEJ) (κ = 0.06, CI -0.002;0.13). IOA was higher for all image markers among experienced evaluators versus novices. This study shows varying IOA for 10 key image markers of KC and precursors in LC-OCT images among evaluators new to the technology. IOA was highest for the assessments of lobules, clefting, and severe dysplasia while lowest for the assessment of the DEJ integrity., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Optical coherence tomography (OCT), a non-invasive diagnostic modality, may replace biopsy for diagnosing basal cell carcinoma (BCC) if a high-confidence BCC diagnosis can be established. In other cases, biopsy remains necessary to establish a histopathological diagnosis and treatment regimen. It is, therefore, essential that OCT assessors have a high specificity for differentiating BCC from non-BCC lesions. To establish high-confidence BCC diagnoses, specific morphological BCC characteristics on OCT are used. This study aimed to review several cases of non-BCC lesions that were misclassified as BCC by experienced OCT assessors, thereby providing insight into the causes of these misclassifications and how they may be prevented. The study population consisted of patients who had a histopathologically-verified non-BCC lesion. Patients from Maastricht University Medical Center+ from February 2021 to April 2021 were included in the study. Two independent OCT assessors assessed OCT scans. One OCT assessor recorded the presence or absence of validated morphological BCC characteristics. A false-positive OCT test result was defined as certainty of BCC presence in a non-BCC lesion. The frequency of misclassifications and the presence or absence of morphological BCC features are discussed. A total of 124 patients with non-BCC lesions were included. Six patients were misclassified by both OCT assessors and are discussed in more detail. Histopathological diagnoses were squamous cell carcinoma (n = 2/21), actinic keratosis (n = 2/29), squamous cell carcinoma in situ/Bowen's disease (n = 1/16), or interphase dermatitis (n = 1/4). In all misclassified cases, multiple, apparent morphological BCC characteristics on OCT were present. Most non-BCC lesions are recognized as such by OCT assessors. However, there remains a small risk that a high-confidence BCC diagnosis is established in non-BCC lesions wherein features mimicking validated BCC characteristics are present. Misclassification may be prevented by careful delineation of epidermal layers and good differentiation between dermal ovoid structures typical of BCC versus squamous cell carcinoma., (© 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japanese Dermatological Association.)

Background: Recurrent/residual basal cell carcinoma (BCC) after topical treatment may not be visible during clinical and dermatoscopic examination (CDE). Optical coherence tomography (OCT) may detect these subclinical recurrences or residues., Objective: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDE with that of CDE combined with OCT (CDE-OCT) for detecting recurrent/residual BCC after topical treatment of superficial BCC., Methods: In this diagnostic cohort study, the suspicion level for recurrence or residue was recorded on a 5-point confidence scale. All patients with high suspicion of recurrence or residue based on CDE and/or CDE-OCT were referred for punch biopsy. Patients with a low suspicion on CDE and CDE-OCT were asked to (voluntarily) undergo a control biopsy. Histopathologic results of the biopsy were used for verification of CDE and CDE-OCT diagnoses (gold standard)., Results: This study included 100 patients. A histopathologic recurrent/residual BCC was found in 20 patients. For recurrence or residue detection, sensitivity was 100% (20 of 20) for CDE-OCT and 60% (12 of 20) for CDE (P = .005) and specificity was 95% for CDE-OCT and 96.3% for CDE (P = .317). The area under the curve for CDE-OCT (0.98) was significantly higher than that for CDE (0.77) (P = .001)., Limitations: Results are based on 2 OCT assessors., Conclusion: Compared with CDE alone, CDE-OCT results in a significantly higher ability to detect recurrent/residual BCCs after topical treatment., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None disclosed., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr K. Mosterd participated in an advisory board for Michelson Diagnostics. Drs Wolswijk, Adan, and Nelemans have no conflicts of interest to declare.