A Feasibility Study for Immediate Histological Assessment of Various Skin Biopsies Using Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy.
CLSM
dermatopathology
epithelial tumors
inflammatory diseases
melanocytic tumors
Journal
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2075-4418
Titre abrégé: Diagnostics (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101658402
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Dec 2022
02 Dec 2022
Historique:
received:
02
11
2022
revised:
16
11
2022
accepted:
01
12
2022
entrez:
23
12
2022
pubmed:
24
12
2022
medline:
24
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Digitally stained ex vivo confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) scans are a possible alternative to formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) stained slides. This study explores the diagnostic accuracy of digitally-stained CLSM scans in comparison to H&E-stained slides in various dermatologic diseases in a real-life setting. Samples of patients out of one selected dermatologic office were primarily scanned via CLSM; a diagnosis was made afterwards using FFPE- and H&E-stained slides by two experienced dermatopathologists. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis in digitally stained CLSM scans in three separate diagnostic groups. CLSM evaluation of epithelial tumors (n = 132) demonstrated a sensitivity of 64.3%/83.9% and a specificity of 84.2%/71.1%. Diagnosis of melanocytic tumors (n = 86) showed a sensitivity of 19.1%/85.1% and a specificity of 96.3%/66.7%. In the diagnosis of other tumors/cysts and inflammatory dermatoses (n = 42), a sensitivity of 96.4%/96.8% and a specificity of 57.1%/45.5% was reached. This study shows the possibilities and limitations of a broad use of CLSM. Because of a partly low diagnostic accuracy, such an application does not seem to be recommendable at present for every indication.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Digitally stained ex vivo confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) scans are a possible alternative to formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) stained slides. This study explores the diagnostic accuracy of digitally-stained CLSM scans in comparison to H&E-stained slides in various dermatologic diseases in a real-life setting.
METHODS
METHODS
Samples of patients out of one selected dermatologic office were primarily scanned via CLSM; a diagnosis was made afterwards using FFPE- and H&E-stained slides by two experienced dermatopathologists. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis in digitally stained CLSM scans in three separate diagnostic groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
CLSM evaluation of epithelial tumors (n = 132) demonstrated a sensitivity of 64.3%/83.9% and a specificity of 84.2%/71.1%. Diagnosis of melanocytic tumors (n = 86) showed a sensitivity of 19.1%/85.1% and a specificity of 96.3%/66.7%. In the diagnosis of other tumors/cysts and inflammatory dermatoses (n = 42), a sensitivity of 96.4%/96.8% and a specificity of 57.1%/45.5% was reached.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows the possibilities and limitations of a broad use of CLSM. Because of a partly low diagnostic accuracy, such an application does not seem to be recommendable at present for every indication.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36553036
pii: diagnostics12123030
doi: 10.3390/diagnostics12123030
pmc: PMC9777122
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
H.O.: no conflicts of interest. M.M.: Mavic provide a Vivascope microscope for the duration of the study. In the past, M.M. had performed studies with previous models of Vivascopes (Mavig) and HistologTMScanner (SamanTree Medical SA). G.M: no conflicts of interest. T.E.: declares speakers and advisory board honoraria from Almirall Hermal, Merck Sharp & Dome, Immunocore, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Roche, Pierre Fabre and BMS. A.-K.M: no conflicts of interest. S.F: received personal fees from Kyowa Kirin and Takeda Pharamceuticals (speakers honoraria) as well as institutional grants from NeraCare, SkylineDX and BioNTech outside the submitted work.
Références
Br J Dermatol. 2007 Jan;156(1):81-4
pubmed: 17199571
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2020 Nov 2;61(13):1
pubmed: 33137194
Sci Rep. 2021 Aug 10;11(1):16252
pubmed: 34376700
J Biophotonics. 2016 Apr;9(4):376-87
pubmed: 25996548
Ital J Dermatol Venerol. 2021 Dec;156(Suppl. 1 to No. 6):41-42
pubmed: 31042855
Exp Ther Med. 2019 Feb;17(2):1004-1011
pubmed: 30679966
J Invest Dermatol. 2022 May;142(5):1291-1299.e2
pubmed: 34695413
JAMA Dermatol. 2013 Jul;149(7):839-47
pubmed: 23636776
JAMA Dermatol. 2016 Dec 1;152(12):1335-1341
pubmed: 27603676
Exp Dermatol. 2018 Oct;27(10):1152-1159
pubmed: 30033578
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2018 Apr 30;8(2):109-119
pubmed: 29785327
J Biomed Opt. 2017 Feb 1;22(2):24002
pubmed: 28199474
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007 May;21(5):591-5
pubmed: 17447971
Br J Dermatol. 2019 Jun;180(6):1473-1480
pubmed: 30512198
J Biophotonics. 2018 Apr;11(4):e201700318
pubmed: 29227042
Dermatol Surg. 2004 Dec;30(12 Pt 1):1470-8
pubmed: 15606734
Dermatol Ther. 2019 Nov;32(6):e13127
pubmed: 31628777
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020 Jul;34(7):1496-1499
pubmed: 31732988
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2021 Apr;35(4):e263-e265
pubmed: 33085808
J Biomed Opt. 2008 Sep-Oct;13(5):054001
pubmed: 19021381
Br J Dermatol. 2013 Oct;169(4):922-6
pubmed: 23701464
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Sep;171(3):561-70
pubmed: 24749970
J Biomed Opt. 2009 May-Jun;14(3):034012
pubmed: 19566305
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Dec;183(6):1011-1025
pubmed: 32134506
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Feb;182(2):468-476
pubmed: 31220341
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2021 May;19(5):685-692
pubmed: 33768732
J Biophotonics. 2018 Jul;11(7):e201800062
pubmed: 29726112
Dermatology. 2022 May 5;:1-7
pubmed: 35512658
Br J Dermatol. 2014 Feb;170(2):360-5
pubmed: 24117457
J Biophotonics. 2017 Jan;10(1):128-142
pubmed: 27091702
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019 Feb;33(2):298-304
pubmed: 30198589