Skin Cancer Diagnosis by Lesion, Physician, and Examination Type: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality. To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Cross-sectional and case-...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:JAMA dermatology (Chicago, Ill.) Ročník 161; číslo 2; s. 135
Hlavní autoři: Chen, Jennifer Y, Fernandez, Kristen, Fadadu, Raj P, Reddy, Rasika, Kim, Mi-Ok, Tan, Josephine, Wei, Maria L
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: United States 01.02.2025
Témata:
ISSN:2168-6084, 2168-6084
On-line přístup:Zjistit podrobnosti o přístupu
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Abstract Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality. To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included. Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images). In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.
AbstractList Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality. To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included. Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023. Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images). In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.ImportanceSkin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method.ObjectiveTo assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method.PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included.Study SelectionCross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included.Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023.Data Extraction and SynthesisSearch terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023.Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images).Main Outcomes and MeasuresMeta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images).In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images.ResultsIn all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images.The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.
Author Tan, Josephine
Reddy, Rasika
Kim, Mi-Ok
Fernandez, Kristen
Wei, Maria L
Fadadu, Raj P
Chen, Jennifer Y
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Jennifer Y
  surname: Chen
  fullname: Chen, Jennifer Y
  organization: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Kristen
  surname: Fernandez
  fullname: Fernandez, Kristen
  organization: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Raj P
  surname: Fadadu
  fullname: Fadadu, Raj P
  organization: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Rasika
  surname: Reddy
  fullname: Reddy, Rasika
  organization: San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Mi-Ok
  surname: Kim
  fullname: Kim, Mi-Ok
  organization: Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Josephine
  surname: Tan
  fullname: Tan, Josephine
  organization: San Francisco Library, University of California, San Francisco
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Maria L
  surname: Wei
  fullname: Wei, Maria L
  organization: Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39535756$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNkElPwzAQhS1UREvpX6h85ECKlywOt6qURSoC0d6jiT0pLolT4hTIvydikZjLPOl98_Q0p2TgaoeETDmbccb45Q4qMNhU0NblTDARzkKpxBEZCR6rIGYqHPzTQzLxfsf6UYyFkp-QoUwjGSVRPCLb9at1dAFOY0OvLWxd7a2neUdX6G3tLujTS-etttBLcIYuP6GyDtreo5tuj1d0Ttedb7FvYzV9xneLH9_kA7YQzB2U_b0_I8cFlB4nv3tMNjfLzeIuWD3e3i_mqwBkpNoAkKUQImIKAoWKdFIkiVaaF1LqlOWxAalYLHRkYmE0xjIyaQ4oUsMKXYgxOf-J3Tf12wF9m1XWayxLcFgffCa5UIonSskenf6ih7xCk-0bW0HTZX-_EV9fn2yz
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_25251_ph6fjn04
crossref_primary_10_1080_20450885_2025_2536999
crossref_primary_10_61409_V10240698
ContentType Journal Article
DBID CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382
DatabaseName Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE
MEDLINE - Academic
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
EISSN 2168-6084
ExternalDocumentID 39535756
Genre Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
GroupedDBID 0R~
4.4
AAWTL
ABJNI
ACGFS
ADBBV
AENEX
AHMBA
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
AMJDE
ANMPU
BCGUY
BRYMA
C45
CGR
CUY
CVF
EBD
EBS
ECM
EIF
EMOBN
EX3
NPM
OB3
OBH
OGROG
OHH
OVD
PQQKQ
RAJ
SV3
TEORI
WOW
53G
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-a358t-ae09a4eee9a2e285c7f77c8c1f33c90b6da38062c5d62dce635d9bae29d0fcf2
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 1
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001417322200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 2168-6084
IngestDate Fri Sep 05 07:10:34 EDT 2025
Sat Nov 15 01:41:49 EST 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 2
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a358t-ae09a4eee9a2e285c7f77c8c1f33c90b6da38062c5d62dce635d9bae29d0fcf2
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
PMID 39535756
PQID 3128817883
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_3128817883
pubmed_primary_39535756
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2025-02-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2025-02-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 02
  year: 2025
  text: 2025-02-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
PublicationTitle JAMA dermatology (Chicago, Ill.)
PublicationTitleAlternate JAMA Dermatol
PublicationYear 2025
SSID ssj0000800431
Score 2.4638548
SecondaryResourceType review_article
Snippet Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality. To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by...
Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.ImportanceSkin cancer is the most common cancer in the...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 135
SubjectTerms Clinical Competence - statistics & numerical data
Dermatologists - standards
Dermatologists - statistics & numerical data
Dermoscopy - methods
Dermoscopy - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Melanoma - diagnosis
Melanoma - pathology
Physical Examination - methods
Physical Examination - statistics & numerical data
Physicians, Primary Care - statistics & numerical data
Sensitivity and Specificity
Skin Neoplasms - diagnosis
Skin Neoplasms - pathology
Title Skin Cancer Diagnosis by Lesion, Physician, and Examination Type: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39535756
https://www.proquest.com/docview/3128817883
Volume 161
WOSCitedRecordID wos001417322200001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV05T8MwFLaAIsTCfZRLRmKsIbUdHywIlVYMbVWJDt0ix3ZQl6Q0AcG_x85RJiQklkyOFPm9PH_v8PcBcIMtpkrIEGksA0S1jJGUxvkyTRjWAU-YLklch3w8FrOZnNQFt7weq2xiYhmoTaZ9jfyOuEAqui5hIw-LN-RVo3x3tZbQWAct4qCM92o-E6sai0dDtJQkxF0mEAsEbS4J18RDxoe_IvM9CExvacnH9xvSLE-cwe5_v3UP7NRYEz5WzrEP1mx6ALZGdTf9ELx65S3Y83Zfwqdq5m6ew_gLDq0vonXgpKl7dKBKDex_Kj85420JfQJ7Dx_hy4oKGlZ9hnLlyBYKNYQnR2A66E97z6gWXkCKhKJAygZSUWutVM6WItQ84VwL3U0I0TKImVFEBM6WoWHYaOtAi5GxsliaINEJPgYbaZbaUwA14Q4xOJyglHSZZBwzpbk0gqmAmZiHbXDd7GDk_No3K1Rqs_c8-tnDNjipzBAtKgKOiMiQOJjJzv7w9jnYxl6ytxy0vgCtxP3V9hJs6o9ini-vSodxz_Fk9A25wstO
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Skin+Cancer+Diagnosis+by+Lesion%2C+Physician%2C+and+Examination+Type%3A+A+Systematic+Review+and+Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=JAMA+dermatology+%28Chicago%2C+Ill.%29&rft.au=Chen%2C+Jennifer+Y&rft.au=Fernandez%2C+Kristen&rft.au=Fadadu%2C+Raj+P&rft.au=Reddy%2C+Rasika&rft.date=2025-02-01&rft.eissn=2168-6084&rft.volume=161&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=135&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001%2Fjamadermatol.2024.4382&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39535756&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F39535756&rft.externalDocID=39535756
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2168-6084&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2168-6084&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2168-6084&client=summon