The rising incidence of melanoma and the high number of benign lesions excised due to diagnostic uncertainty highlight the need for effective patient triage. This study assesses the safety and accuracy of teledermoscopic triage on a high-prevalence case set with pre-triaged, challenging, melanoma-suspicious lesions.
Methods
Five dermatologists independently reviewed 250 retrospectively extracted patient cases. Teledermoscopy assessments were simulated for panels of 1, 2, 3 and 5 assessors using two distinct consensus strategies, Caution Protocol and Majority Vote, and the sensitivity and specificity of the patient triages were calculated.
Results
Triage by a single teledermatologist showed a sensitivity of 92.3% and a specificity of 58.7%. Sensitivity improved with the number of assessors, particularly when using the Caution Protocol, though with a considerable drop in specificity. The Majority Vote showed a more balanced improvement in sensitivity and specificity. Safety analyses indicated that diagnostic accuracy decreased with poor image quality and increased case difficulty.
Discussion
Expert teledermoscopic triage of melanocytic skin lesions is highly sensitive and lowers the need for unnecessary excision procedures by half while dismissing as few as 0.4% (95% confidence interval 0–0.6%) of melanomas, even when applied to a high-prevalence pre-triaged subpopulation. Implementation of safety procedures increases accuracy. Using multiple teledermatologists increases sensitivity but at the cost of specificity unless a Majority Vote consensus strategy is applied. Future teledermoscopy guidelines should encompass safety procedures and protocols for disagreement between assessors.
WhitemanDCGreenACOlsenCM. The growing burden of invasive melanoma: Projections of incidence rates and numbers of new cases in six susceptible populations through 2031. J Invest Dermatol [Internet]2016; 136: 1161–1171.
2.
ArnoldMSinghDLaversanneM, et al.Global burden of cutaneous melanoma in 2020 and projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatol2022; 158: 495–503.
3.
OmlandSHHaragerAPhillipsenP,et al.Diagnostic flow of patients in a national fast-track referral system for malignant melanoma. Dan Med J2024; 71: 1–8.
4.
PettyAJAckersonBGarzaR, et al.Meta-analysis of number needed to treat for diagnosis of melanoma by clinical setting. J Am Acad Dermatol2020; 82: 1158–1165.
5.
WelchHGWoloshinSSchwartzLM. Skin biopsy rates and incidence of melanoma: Population based ecological study. Br Med J2005; 331: 481–484.
6.
WelchHGMazerBLAdamsonAS. The rapid rise in cutaneous melanoma diagnoses. N Engl J Med2021; 384: 72–79.
7.
KutznerHJutziTBKrahlD, et al.Overdiagnosis of melanoma – causes, consequences and solutions. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges2020; 18: 1236–1243.
8.
PietteENougairèdeMVuongV, et al.Impact of a store-and-forward teledermatology intervention versus usual care on delay before beginning treatment: A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial in ambulatory care. J Telemed Telecare2017; 23: 725–732.
9.
VestergaardTPrasadSCSchusterA, et al.Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver concordance: Teledermoscopy of 600 suspicious skin lesions in southern Denmark. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol2020; 34: 1601–1608.
10.
JonesLKOakleyA. Store-and-forward teledermatology for assessing skin cancer in 2023. Literature Review. JMIR Dermatol2023; 6: 1–10.
11.
DinnesJJjDChuchuN, et al.Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosingmelanoma in adults (review). Cochrane Libr2018; 12: 1–661.
12.
ClarkeELReichenbergJSAhmedAM, et al.The utility of teledermatology in the evaluation of skin lesions. J Telemed Telecare2023; 29: 382–389.
13.
van SinderenFTensenELansinkRAB, et al.Eleven years of teledermoscopy in The Netherlands: A retrospective quality and performance analysis of 18,738 consultations. J Telemed Telecare2024; 30: 1037–1046.
14.
Dahlén GyllencreutzJPaoliJBjellerupM, et al.Diagnostic agreement and interobserver concordance with teledermoscopy referrals. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol2017; 31: 898–903.
15.
BörveADahlén GyllencreutzJTerstappenK, et al.Smartphone teledermoscopy referrals: A novel process for improved triage of skin cancer patients. Acta Derm Venereol2015; 95: 186–190.
16.
TensenEvan SinderenFBekkenkMW, et al.To refer or not to refer in teledermoscopy: Retrospective study. JMIR Dermatol2022; 5: 1–8.
17.
BecevicMGeBBraudisK, et al.Diagnostic and treatment concordance in primary care participants and dermatologists utilizing Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO). J Telemed Telecare2024; 30: 1345–1352.
18.
AltamuraDAvramidisMMenziesSW. Assessment of the optimal interval for and sensitivity of short-term sequential digital dermoscopy monitoring for the diagnosis of melanoma. Arch Dermatol2008; 144: 502–506.
19.
MenziesSWGutenevAAvramidisM, et al.Short-term digital surface microscopic monitoring of atypical or changing melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol2001; 137: 1583–1589.
RStudio Team. RStudio: Integrated Development for R [Internet]. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC, 2020, Available from: http://www.rstudio.com/.
23.
ShrefflerJHueckerMR. Diagnostic testing accuracy: Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios - StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing, 2024 January 2023 [cited 2024 Mar 23], Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557491/.
24.
R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna A. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/.
25.
Posit Software, PBC formerly RStudio P. RStudio 2023.09.0 + 463 “Desert Sunflower” [Internet]. Available from: https://posit.co/downloads/.
26.
AbbottLMMillerRJandaM, et al.A review of literature supporting the development of practice guidelines for teledermatology in Australia. Australas J Dermatol2020; 61: e174–e183.
27.
ZazoVBomanAAnderssonN. Diagnostic accuracy and safety of teledermoscopy for cutaneous melanoma triage in northern Sweden. Acta Derm Venereol2024; 104: adv15302.
28.
TeagueRWangMWenD, et al.Virtual lesion clinic – evaluation of a teledermatology triage system for referrals for suspected melanoma. Australas J Dermatol2022; 63: e33–e40.
29.
HukkinenKKivisaariLVehmasT. Impact of the number of readers on mammography interpretation. Acta Radiol2006; 47: 655–659.
30.
RinnerCKittlerHRosendahlC,et al.Analysis of collective human intelligence for diagnosis of pigmented skin lesions harnessed by gamification via a web-based training platform: Simulation reader study. J Med Internet Res2020; 22: 1–8.
31.
TschandlPRinnerCApallaZ, et al.Human–computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med [Internet]2020; 26: 1229–1234.
32.
GeroA. Conflict avoidance in consensual decision processes. Small Gr Res1985; 16: 487–499.
33.
Taylor-PhillipsSStintonC. Double reading in breast cancer screening: Considerations for policy-making. Br J Radiol2020; 93: 20190610.
34.
KahnemanDLovalloDSibonyO, et al.A structured approach to strategic decisions: Reducing errors in judgement requires a disciplined process [Internet]. MIT Sloan Manage Rev. 2019; 60: 67–73.
35.
PowREMello-ThomsCBrennanP. Evaluation of the effect of double reporting on test accuracy in screening and diagnostic imaging studies: A review of the evidence. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol2016; 60: 306–314.
36.
KlompenhouwerEGVoogdACHeetenD, et al.Blinded double reading yields a higher programme sensitivity than non-blinded double reading at digital screening mammography: A prospected population based study in the south of The Netherlands. Eur J Cancer [Internet]2015; 51: 391–399.
37.
LeeMSStavertR. Factors contributing to diagnostic discordance between store-and-forward teledermatology consultations and in-person visits: Case series. JMIR Dermatol2021; 4: 1–17.
38.
Dahlén GyllencreutzJJohansson BackmanETerstappenK,et al.Teledermoscopy images acquired in primary health care and hospital settings – a comparative study of image quality. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol2018; 32: 1038–1043.
39.
NiklassonLPrasadSCSchusterA, et al.A comparative study of the image quality of dermoscopic images acquired in general practice versus at a dermatology department. J Am Acad Dermatol2023; 2: 802–809.
40.
PeterHJenniferASnoswellC, et al.Cost-effectiveness of store-and-forward teledermatology: A systematic review. JAMA Dermatol [Internet]2016; 152: 702–708.
41.
WangRHBarbieriJSNguyenHP, et al.Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of teledermatology: Where are we now, and what are the barriers to adoption?J Am Acad Dermatol [Internet]2020; 83: 299–307.
42.
ZakariaAMiclauTAMaurerT, et al.Cost minimization analysis of a teledermatology triage system in a managed care setting. JAMA Dermatol2021; 157: 52–58.
43.
ChuchuNDinnesJTakwoingiY, et al.Teledermatology for diagnosing skin cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 12: CD013193.
44.
DamsinTCanivetGJacqueminP, et al.Evaluation of a 3-year teledermoscopy project in primary healthcare centres in Belgium. JEADV Clin Pract2024; 3: 160–168.
45.
VestergaardTPrasadSCSchusterA, et al.Introducing teledermoscopy of possible skin cancers in general practice in southern Denmark. Fam Pract2021; 37: 513–518.
46.
ElmoreJGEguchiMMBarnhillRL, et al.Effect of prior diagnoses on Dermatopathologists’ interpretations of melanocytic lesions: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA Dermatol2022; 158: 1040–1047.
47.
BerglundSBogrenLPaoliJ. Diagnostic accuracy and safety of short-term teledermoscopic monitoring of atypical melanocytic lesions. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol2020; 34: 1233–1239.
48.
Moreno-RamirezDFerrandizLRuiz-de-CasasA, et al.Economic evaluation of a store-and-forward teledermatology system for skin cancer patients. J Telemed Telecare2009; 15: 40–45.
49.
VestergaardTAndersenMKKidholmK. A cost-minimization analysis comparing teledermoscopy and face-to-face evaluations of suspicious skin lesions in southern Denmark. J Telemed Telecare2024; 30: 661–667.
50.
CiattoSDel TurcoMRMorroneD, et al.Independent double reading of screening mammograms. J Med Screen1995; 2: 99–101.
51.
GeijerHGeijerM. Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology, a systematic review. Insights Imaging2018; 9: 287–301.
52.
PossoMCarlesMRuéM, et al.Cost-effectiveness of double reading versus single reading of mammograms in a breast cancer screening programme. PLoS One2016; 11: e0159806.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
