Cross-Polarized Macro Photography versus Polarized Dermoscopy in Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Blinded Paired-Image Comparison.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 DERMATOLOGY
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology Pub Date : 2026-04-23 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CCID.S605974
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.

交叉偏光微距摄影与偏光皮肤镜在基底细胞癌中的应用:盲法配对图像比较。
背景:极化皮肤镜(PD)是基底细胞癌(BCC)公认的非接触成像方式。交叉偏光微距摄影(CPMP)采用类似的光学原理,使用广泛的设备,但其性能相对于PD还没有系统的评估。目的:采用盲法配对图像设计,比较CPMP和PD在BCC中的皮肤镜特征可见性、图像质量和专家模式偏好。方法:在同一次临床访问期间获得的组织病理学证实的bcc的100对CPMP和PD图像,被数字掩盖以去除模式揭示线索,并随机并排成对进行审查。特征可见性由3名皮肤科医生评估;多学科小组使用DIQS-5(结构化5点皮肤镜图像质量量表)进行图像质量评估;三名熟悉不同CPMP的皮肤科医生在两轮盲法试验中对治疗方式的偏好。结果:任何已建立的BCC标准的特征可见性无显著差异(均P < 0.05)。CPMP在景深和色彩保真度方面得分显著更高(P < 0.001);两种模式的锐度具有可比性(P = 0.494)。CPMP在单帧内捕获了所有≥1cm的病变,而41.5%的大病变超出了PD的视野。在两轮评估中,大多数评分者都倾向于CPMP,具有表型依赖模式:CPMP适用于色素丰富的病变,PD适用于精细血管结构的病变。结论:CPMP表现出与PD相当的特征可见性,同时在景深,视野和显色性方面具有可测量的优势,表明这些模式在BCC成像中具有互补作用。
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
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
4.30%
发文量
353
审稿时长
16 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书