Standard Dermatoscope Images vs an Autonomous Total Body Photography and Dermoscopic Imaging Device.

IF 11.5 1区医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY

JAMA dermatology Pub Date : 2025-04-09 DOI:10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0565

Pau Rosés-Gibert, Cristina Heras, Narcis Ricart, Enric Campmol, Núria Ferrera, Susana Puig, J Malvehy

{"title":"Standard Dermatoscope Images vs an Autonomous Total Body Photography and Dermoscopic Imaging Device.","authors":"Pau Rosés-Gibert, Cristina Heras, Narcis Ricart, Enric Campmol, Núria Ferrera, Susana Puig, J Malvehy","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Importance: Recent advancements in autonomous medical devices for skin imaging offer the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of total body photography (TBP) and dermatoscopic documentation, which are essential in treating patients with skin cancer, especially those with high-risk melanoma with atypical mole syndrome.Objective: To compare the image quality and time efficiency of an autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device for TBP and dermoscopic imaging with traditional manual digital dermoscopic techniques.Design, setting, and participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted from March 1, 2023, to October 30, 2023, comparing image quality and time efficiency between an autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device and manual dermoscopic documentation across 316 patients with atypical mole syndrome at 2 dermatology clinics in Spain. All analyses took place in June 2024.Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the acceptability of the images, assessed by 2 independent dermatologists. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic agreement between the 2 methods and time efficiency for image acquisition.Results: Overall, mean (SD) age of patients was 47.13 (3.31) years. The number of male patients was 105 (33%), while the number of female patients was 211 (66%). The autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device produced dermoscopic images with a mean (SD) quality score of 9.84 (0.72), compared with 9.44 (0.85) for manual digital dermoscopy, with no significant differences by body site or lesion type. Diagnostic classification agreement between the 2 methods was 91.60%, with most discrepancies related to small benign lesions. The mean (SD) imaging time for the autonomous device was 570 (169) seconds, compared with 606 (286) seconds for the manual method.Conclusions and relevance: This cohort study found that the autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device produced images of comparable quality to standard dermoscopic techniques while operating with greater time efficiency. These findings suggest that the device may contribute to clinical workflow optimization in dermatology by supporting TBP and dermoscopic imaging.","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2025.0565","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Recent advancements in autonomous medical devices for skin imaging offer the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of total body photography (TBP) and dermatoscopic documentation, which are essential in treating patients with skin cancer, especially those with high-risk melanoma with atypical mole syndrome.

Objective: To compare the image quality and time efficiency of an autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device for TBP and dermoscopic imaging with traditional manual digital dermoscopic techniques.

Design, setting, and participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted from March 1, 2023, to October 30, 2023, comparing image quality and time efficiency between an autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device and manual dermoscopic documentation across 316 patients with atypical mole syndrome at 2 dermatology clinics in Spain. All analyses took place in June 2024.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the acceptability of the images, assessed by 2 independent dermatologists. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic agreement between the 2 methods and time efficiency for image acquisition.

Results: Overall, mean (SD) age of patients was 47.13 (3.31) years. The number of male patients was 105 (33%), while the number of female patients was 211 (66%). The autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device produced dermoscopic images with a mean (SD) quality score of 9.84 (0.72), compared with 9.44 (0.85) for manual digital dermoscopy, with no significant differences by body site or lesion type. Diagnostic classification agreement between the 2 methods was 91.60%, with most discrepancies related to small benign lesions. The mean (SD) imaging time for the autonomous device was 570 (169) seconds, compared with 606 (286) seconds for the manual method.

Conclusions and relevance: This cohort study found that the autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device produced images of comparable quality to standard dermoscopic techniques while operating with greater time efficiency. These findings suggest that the device may contribute to clinical workflow optimization in dermatology by supporting TBP and dermoscopic imaging.

查看原文本刊更多论文

标准皮肤镜图像vs自主全身摄影和皮肤镜成像设备。

重要性：自主皮肤成像医疗设备的最新进展为提高全身摄影（TBP）和皮肤镜记录的效率和质量提供了潜力，这对于治疗皮肤癌患者，特别是那些高风险黑色素瘤伴非典型痣综合征的患者至关重要。目的：比较全自动TBP皮肤镜与传统手动数字皮肤镜在TBP和皮肤镜成像中的图像质量和时间效率。设计、环境和参与者：从2023年3月1日至2023年10月30日进行了一项前瞻性队列研究，比较了西班牙2家皮肤科诊所316例非典型痣综合征患者的自主TBP和皮肤镜设备与手动皮肤镜记录的图像质量和时间效率。所有分析都在2024年6月进行。主要结果和措施：主要结果是图像的可接受性，由2名独立皮肤科医生评估。次要结果包括两种方法的诊断一致性和图像采集的时间效率。结果：总体而言，患者平均（SD）年龄为47.13（3.31）岁。男性105例（33%），女性211例（66%）。自主TBP和皮肤镜装置产生的皮肤镜图像的平均（SD）质量评分为9.84(0.72)，而手动数字皮肤镜的平均（SD）质量评分为9.44(0.85)，在身体部位或病变类型方面无显著差异。两种方法的诊断分类一致性为91.60%，大多数差异与小的良性病变有关。自动装置的平均（SD）成像时间为570（169）秒，而手动方法的平均（SD）成像时间为606（286）秒。结论和相关性：该队列研究发现，自主TBP和皮肤镜设备产生的图像质量与标准皮肤镜技术相当，同时操作时间效率更高。这些发现表明，通过支持TBP和皮肤镜成像，该设备可能有助于皮肤科临床工作流程的优化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

JAMA dermatology DERMATOLOGY-

CiteScore

14.10

自引率

5.50%

发文量

300

期刊介绍： JAMA Dermatology is an international peer-reviewed journal that has been in continuous publication since 1882. It began publication by the American Medical Association in 1920 as Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. The journal publishes material that helps in the development and testing of the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment in medical and surgical dermatology, pediatric and geriatric dermatology, and oncologic and aesthetic dermatologic surgery. JAMA Dermatology is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. It is published online weekly, every Wednesday, and in 12 print/online issues a year. The mission of the journal is to elevate the art and science of health and diseases of skin, hair, nails, and mucous membranes, and their treatment, with the aim of enabling dermatologists to deliver evidence-based, high-value medical and surgical dermatologic care. The journal publishes a broad range of innovative studies and trials that shift research and clinical practice paradigms, expand the understanding of the burden of dermatologic diseases and key outcomes, improve the practice of dermatology, and ensure equitable care to all patients. It also features research and opinion examining ethical, moral, socioeconomic, educational, and political issues relevant to dermatologists, aiming to enable ongoing improvement to the workforce, scope of practice, and the training of future dermatologists. JAMA Dermatology aims to be a leader in developing initiatives to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion within the specialty and within dermatology medical publishing.