Comparison of reflectance confocal microscopy and line-field optical coherence tomography for the identification of keratinocyte skin tumours.
actinic keratosis
line-field optical coherence tomography
reflectance confocal microscopy
squamous cell carcinoma
Journal
Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)
ISSN: 1600-0846
Titre abrégé: Skin Res Technol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9504453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2023
Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
19
05
2022
accepted:
01
10
2022
pubmed:
26
11
2022
medline:
31
1
2023
entrez:
25
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT) are non-invasive imaging devices that can help in the clinical diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). No studies are available on the comparison between these two technologies for the identification of the different features of keratinocyte skin tumours. To compare RCM and LC-OCT findings in AK and SCC. A retrospective multicenter study was conducted. Tumours were imaged with RCM and LC-OCT devices before surgery, and the diagnosis was confirmed by histological examinations. LC-OCT and RCM criteria for AK/SCC were identified, and their presence/absence was evaluated in all study lesions. Gwet AC1 concordance index was calculated to compare RCM and LC-OCT. We included 52 patients with 33 AKs and 19 SCCs. Irregular epidermis was visible in most tumours and with a good degree of agreement between RCM and LC-OCT (Gwet's AC1 0.74). Parakeratosis, dyskeratotic keratinocytes and both linear dilated and glomerular vessels were better visible at LC-OCT than RCM (p < 0.001). Erosion/ulceration was identified with both methods in more than half of the cases with a good degree of agreement (Gwet AC1 0.62). Our results suggest that both LC-OCT and hand-held RCM can help clinicians in the identification of AK and SCC, providing an in vivo and non-invasive identification of an irregular epidermis. LC-OCT proved to be more effective in identifying parakeratosis, dyskeratotic keratinocytes and vessels in this series.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT) are non-invasive imaging devices that can help in the clinical diagnosis of actinic keratosis (AK) and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). No studies are available on the comparison between these two technologies for the identification of the different features of keratinocyte skin tumours.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To compare RCM and LC-OCT findings in AK and SCC.
METHODS
METHODS
A retrospective multicenter study was conducted. Tumours were imaged with RCM and LC-OCT devices before surgery, and the diagnosis was confirmed by histological examinations. LC-OCT and RCM criteria for AK/SCC were identified, and their presence/absence was evaluated in all study lesions. Gwet AC1 concordance index was calculated to compare RCM and LC-OCT.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 52 patients with 33 AKs and 19 SCCs. Irregular epidermis was visible in most tumours and with a good degree of agreement between RCM and LC-OCT (Gwet's AC1 0.74). Parakeratosis, dyskeratotic keratinocytes and both linear dilated and glomerular vessels were better visible at LC-OCT than RCM (p < 0.001). Erosion/ulceration was identified with both methods in more than half of the cases with a good degree of agreement (Gwet AC1 0.62).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results suggest that both LC-OCT and hand-held RCM can help clinicians in the identification of AK and SCC, providing an in vivo and non-invasive identification of an irregular epidermis. LC-OCT proved to be more effective in identifying parakeratosis, dyskeratotic keratinocytes and vessels in this series.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36424847
doi: 10.1111/srt.13215
pmc: PMC9838760
doi:
Types de publication
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13215Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Skin Research and Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Apr 22;21(8):
pubmed: 32331425
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 May;80(5):1414-1427.e3
pubmed: 30529706
Dermatol Surg. 2008 May;34(5):610-9
pubmed: 18261097
Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(6):451-64
pubmed: 19640009
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020 Oct 26;10(4):e2020121
pubmed: 33150042
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Jul;32(7):1155-1163
pubmed: 29178474
Skin Res Technol. 2023 Jan;29(1):e13215
pubmed: 36424847
J Biomed Opt. 2018 Oct;23(10):1-9
pubmed: 30353716
Int J Dermatol. 2019 Dec;58(12):1382-1387
pubmed: 31286498
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Dec;35(12):2388-2397
pubmed: 34415646
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018 Aug;32(8):1284-1291
pubmed: 29341263
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017 Nov;31(11):1828-1833
pubmed: 28696052
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021 Dec;46(8):1530-1541
pubmed: 34115900
Curr Probl Dermatol. 2015;46:70-6
pubmed: 25561209
Skin Res Technol. 2020 Nov;26(6):876-882
pubmed: 32592215
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Dec;35(12):e900-e902
pubmed: 34310768
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Jul;29(7):1302-9
pubmed: 25357235