Ozan Erdem, Vefa Aslı Erdemir, Buğra Burç Dağtaş, Ayşe Esra Koku Aksu, Sümeyre Seda Ertekin, Abdurrahim Yilmaz, Ece Gökyayla, Gülsüm Gençoğlan, Fatih Göktay, Mehmet Salih Gürel
{"title":"Cross-Polarized Macro Photography versus Polarized Dermoscopy in Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Blinded Paired-Image Comparison.","authors":"Ozan Erdem, Vefa Aslı Erdemir, Buğra Burç Dağtaş, Ayşe Esra Koku Aksu, Sümeyre Seda Ertekin, Abdurrahim Yilmaz, Ece Gökyayla, Gülsüm Gençoğlan, Fatih Göktay, Mehmet Salih Gürel","doi":"10.2147/CCID.S605974","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Polarized dermoscopy (PD) is the established non-contact imaging modality for basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Cross-polarized macro photography (CPMP) applies analogous optical principles using widely available equipment, but its performance relative to PD has not been systematically evaluated.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare dermoscopic feature visibility, image quality, and expert modality preference between CPMP and PD in BCC using a blinded, paired-image design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One hundred paired CPMP and PD images of histopathologically confirmed BCCs, acquired during the same clinical visit, were digitally masked to remove modality-revealing cues and reviewed in randomized side-by-side pairs. Feature visibility was assessed by three dermoscopists; image quality by a multidisciplinary panel using the DIQS-5 (a structured 5-point dermoscopic image quality scale); and modality preference by three dermatologists with varying CPMP familiarity across two blinded rounds with a washout period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Feature visibility did not differ significantly for any established BCC criterion (all P > 0.05). CPMP scored significantly higher for depth of field and color fidelity (both P < 0.001); sharpness was comparable between modalities (P = 0.494). CPMP captured all lesions ≥1 cm in a single frame, whereas 41.5% of large lesions exceeded PD's field of view. The majority of raters preferred CPMP in both evaluation rounds, with phenotype-dependent patterns: CPMP was favored for pigment-rich lesions and PD for lesions with fine vascular structures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CPMP demonstrated feature visibility comparable to PD while offering measurable advantages in depth of field, field of view, and color rendering, suggesting complementary roles for these modalities in BCC imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":10447,"journal":{"name":"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology","volume":"19 ","pages":"605974"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13117832/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S605974","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Polarized dermoscopy (PD) is the established non-contact imaging modality for basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Cross-polarized macro photography (CPMP) applies analogous optical principles using widely available equipment, but its performance relative to PD has not been systematically evaluated.
Objective: To compare dermoscopic feature visibility, image quality, and expert modality preference between CPMP and PD in BCC using a blinded, paired-image design.
Methods: One hundred paired CPMP and PD images of histopathologically confirmed BCCs, acquired during the same clinical visit, were digitally masked to remove modality-revealing cues and reviewed in randomized side-by-side pairs. Feature visibility was assessed by three dermoscopists; image quality by a multidisciplinary panel using the DIQS-5 (a structured 5-point dermoscopic image quality scale); and modality preference by three dermatologists with varying CPMP familiarity across two blinded rounds with a washout period.
Results: Feature visibility did not differ significantly for any established BCC criterion (all P > 0.05). CPMP scored significantly higher for depth of field and color fidelity (both P < 0.001); sharpness was comparable between modalities (P = 0.494). CPMP captured all lesions ≥1 cm in a single frame, whereas 41.5% of large lesions exceeded PD's field of view. The majority of raters preferred CPMP in both evaluation rounds, with phenotype-dependent patterns: CPMP was favored for pigment-rich lesions and PD for lesions with fine vascular structures.
Conclusion: CPMP demonstrated feature visibility comparable to PD while offering measurable advantages in depth of field, field of view, and color rendering, suggesting complementary roles for these modalities in BCC imaging.
期刊介绍:
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal that focuses on the latest clinical and experimental research in all aspects of skin disease and cosmetic interventions. Normal and pathological processes in skin development and aging, their modification and treatment, as well as basic research into histology of dermal and dermal structures that provide clinical insights and potential treatment options are key topics for the journal.
Patient satisfaction, preference, quality of life, compliance, persistence and their role in developing new management options to optimize outcomes for target conditions constitute major areas of interest.
The journal is characterized by the rapid reporting of clinical studies, reviews and original research in skin research and skin care.
All areas of dermatology will be covered; contributions will be welcomed from all clinicians and basic science researchers globally.