Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27603676›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2016

Use of Digitally Stained Multimodal Confocal Mosaic Images to Screen for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer.

Euphemia W Mu, Jesse M Lewin, Mary L Stevenson, Shane A Meehan, John A Carucci, Daniel S Gareau

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Virtual Staining of Nonfixed Tissue Histology.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Euphemia W MuThe Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Jesse M LewinDepartment of Dermatology, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Mary L StevensonThe Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Shane A MeehanThe Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York3Department of Pathology, Dermatopathology Section, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
John A CarucciThe Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York.
Daniel S GareauLaboratory of Investigative Dermatology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York.
New York University · USColumbia University · USRockefeller University · US

Funding

Training in the Molecular Basis of Skin/Mucosa PathobiologyT32CA106195 · NCI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI KULESZ-MARTIN, MOLLY F. · 2004 to 2018
$3.8M
Intra-operative confocal imaging-guided Mohs surgeryR01EB002715 · NIBIB · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI RAJADHYAKSHA, MILIND · 2003 to 2006
$1.7M
Clinical translation of video assisted micrographic surgery for staged cancer removalR01CA193390 · NCI · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI CARUCCI, JOHN A · 2015 to 2017
$898k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA193390NCI NIH HHS T32 CA106195NIBIB NIH HHS R01 EB002715
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Confocal microscopy has the potential to provide rapid bedside pathologic analysis, but clinical adoption has been limited in part by the need for physician retraining to interpret grayscale images. Digitally stained confocal mosaics (DSCMs) mimic the colors of routine histologic specimens and may increase adaptability of this technology. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of 3 physicians using DSCMs before and after training to detect basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in Mohs micrographic surgery fresh-tissue specimens. Design: This retrospective study used 133 DSCMs from 64 Mohs tissue excisions, which included clear margins, residual BCC, or residual SCC. Discarded tissue from Mohs surgical excisions from the dermatologic surgery units at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Oregon Health & Science University were collected for confocal imaging from 2006 to 2011. Final data analysis and interpretation took place between 2014 and 2016. Two Mohs surgeons and a Mohs fellow, who were blinded to the correlating gold standard frozen section diagnoses, independently reviewed the DSCMs for residual nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) before and after a brief training session (about 5 minutes). The 2 assessments were separated by a 6-month washout period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnostic accuracy was characterized by sensitivity and specificity of detecting NMSC using DSCMs vs standard frozen histopathologic specimens. The diagnostic precision was calculated based on interobserver agreement and κ scores. Paired 2-sample t tests were used for comparative means analyses before and after training. Results: The average respective sensitivities and specificities of detecting NMSC were 90% (95% CI, 89%-91%) and 79% (95% CI, 52%-100%) before training and 99% (95% CI, 99%-99%) (P = .001) and 93% (95% CI, 90%-96%) (P = .18) after training; for BCC, they were 83% (95% CI, 59%-100%) and 92% (95% CI, 81%-100%) before training and 98% (95% CI, 98%-98%) (P = .18) and 97% (95% CI, 95%-100%) (P = .15) after training; for SCC, they were 73% (95% CI, 65%-81%) and 89% (95% CI, 72%-100%) before training and 100% (P = .004) and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) (P = .21) after training. The pretraining interobserver agreement was 72% (κ = 0.58), and the posttraining interobserver agreement was 98% (κ = 0.97) (P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Diagnostic use of DSCMs shows promising correlation to frozen histologic analysis, but image quality was affected by variations in image contrast and mosaic-stitching artifact. With training, physicians were able to read DSCMs with significantly improved accuracy and precision to detect NMSC.

Indexed as

ArtifactsBasal Cell CarcinomaCarcinoma, Squamous CellClinical CompetenceHumansMicroscopy, ConfocalMohs SurgeryPhysiciansRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID27603676
PMCPMC5757842
OpenAlexW2508194993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.