ArticleThe Journal of dermatology2024
'Pitfalls for differentiating basal cell carcinoma from non-basal cell carcinoma on optical coherence tomography: A clinical series'.
Article in The Journal of dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Clinical and Dermoscopic Photographs on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Remote Optical Coherence Tomography Assessment for Basal Cell Carcinoma Detection: A Comparative Diagnostic Study.International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- Cumulative Sum Analysis-Integrated E-Learning for Differentiation Between Basal Cell Carcinoma and Non-Basal Cell Carcinoma on Optical Coherence Tomography: An Observational Cohort Study.International journal of dermatology · 2025Observational
- ABCD for Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT): An Acronym to Aid OCT Evaluation for Detecting Basal Cell Carcinoma.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
- 'Pitfalls for differentiating basal cell carcinoma from non-basal cell carcinoma on optical coherence tomography: A clinical series'.The Journal of dermatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optical coherence tomography (OCT), a non-invasive diagnostic modality, may replace biopsy for diagnosing basal cell carcinoma (BCC) if a high-confidence BCC diagnosis can be established. In other cases, biopsy remains necessary to establish a histopathological diagnosis and treatment regimen. It is, therefore, essential that OCT assessors have a high specificity for differentiating BCC from non-BCC lesions. To establish high-confidence BCC diagnoses, specific morphological BCC characteristics on OCT are used. This study aimed to review several cases of non-BCC lesions that were misclassified as BCC by experienced OCT assessors, thereby providing insight into the causes of these misclassifications and how they may be prevented. The study population consisted of patients who had a histopathologically-verified non-BCC lesion. Patients from Maastricht University Medical Center+ from February 2021 to April 2021 were included in the study. Two independent OCT assessors assessed OCT scans. One OCT assessor recorded the presence or absence of validated morphological BCC characteristics. A false-positive OCT test result was defined as certainty of BCC presence in a non-BCC lesion. The frequency of misclassifications and the presence or absence of morphological BCC features are discussed. A total of 124 patients with non-BCC lesions were included. Six patients were misclassified by both OCT assessors and are discussed in more detail. Histopathological diagnoses were squamous cell carcinoma (n = 2/21), actinic keratosis (n = 2/29), squamous cell carcinoma in situ/Bowen's disease (n = 1/16), or interphase dermatitis (n = 1/4). In all misclassified cases, multiple, apparent morphological BCC characteristics on OCT were present. Most non-BCC lesions are recognized as such by OCT assessors. However, there remains a small risk that a high-confidence BCC diagnosis is established in non-BCC lesions wherein features mimicking validated BCC characteristics are present. Misclassification may be prevented by careful delineation of epidermal layers and good differentiation between dermal ovoid structures typical of BCC versus squamous cell carcinoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.