Background: Non‐invasive diagnostic techniques in dermatology gained increasing popularity in the last decade. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are meanwhile established in research and clinical routine. While OCT is mainly indicated for detecting non‐melanoma skin cancer, RCM has proven its usefulness additionally in distinguishing melanocytic lesions. Line‐field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC‐OCT) is an emerging tool combining the principles of both above‐mentioned methods.Methods: Healthy skin at different body sites and exemplary skin lesions (basal cell carcinoma, malignant melanoma, actinic keratosis) were examined using dermoscopy, RCM, OCT and LC‐OCT. Standard features for RCM and OCT and comparable features for LC‐OCT were analysed.Results: LC‐OCT has a lower penetration depth but superior resolution compared to OCT. In comparison with RCM, which provides only horizontal sections, LC‐OCT creates both vertical and horizontal images in real time and has nearly the same cellular resolution.Discussion: Our preliminary experiences suggest that LC‐OCT combines the advantages of RCM and OCT, with optimal resolution and penetration depth to diagnose all types of skin cancer.Larger systematic studies are needed to further characterize the field of use of this device and its sensitivity and specificity compared to histology.

Until now, the clinical differentiation between a nevus and a melanoma is still challenging in some cases. Line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT) is a new tool with the aim to change that. The aim of the study was to evaluate LC-OCT for the discrimination between nevi and melanomas. A total of 84 melanocytic lesions were examined with LC-OCT and 36 were also imaged with RCM. The observers recorded the diagnoses, and the presence or absence of the 18 most common imaging parameters for melanocytic lesions, nevi, and melanomas in the LC-OCT images. Their confidence in diagnosis and the image quality of LC-OCT and RCM were evaluated. The most useful criteria, the sensitivity and specificity of LC-OCT vs. RCM vs. histology, to differentiate a (dysplastic) nevus from a melanoma were analyzed. Good image quality correlated with better diagnostic performance (Spearman correlation: 0.4). LC-OCT had a 93% sensitivity and 100% specificity compared to RCM (93% sensitivity, 95% specificity) for diagnosing a melanoma (vs. all types of nevi). No difference in performance between RCM and LC-OCT was observed (McNemar’s p value = 1). Both devices falsely diagnosed dysplastic nevi as non-dysplastic (43% sensitivity for dysplastic nevus diagnosis). The most significant criteria for diagnosing a melanoma with LC-OCT were irregular honeycombed patterns (92% occurrence rate; 31.7 odds ratio (OR)), the presence of pagetoid spread (89% occurrence rate; 23.6 OR) and the absence of dermal nests (23% occurrence rate, 0.02 OR). In conclusion LC-OCT is useful for the discrimination between melanomas and nevi.

Diagnosing clinically unclear basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) can be challenging. Line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT) is able to display morphological features of BCC subtypes with good histological correlation. The aim of this study was to investigate the accuracy of LC-OCT in diagnosing clinically unsure cases of BCC compared to dermoscopy alone and in distinguishing between superficial BCCs and other BCC subtypes. Moreover, we addressed pitfalls in false positive cases. We prospectively enrolled 182 lesions of 154 patients, referred to our department to confirm or to rule out the diagnosis of BCC. Dermoscopy and LC-OCT images were evaluated by two experts independently. Image quality, LC-OCT patterns and criteria, diagnosis, BCC subtype, and diagnostic confidence were assessed. Sensitivity and specificity of additional LC-OCT were compared to dermoscopy alone for identifying BCC in clinically unclear lesions. In addition, key LC-OCT features to distinguish between BCCs and non-BCCs and to differentiate superficial BCCs from other BCC subtypes were determined by linear regressions. Diagnostic confidence was rated as “high” in only 48% of the lesions with dermoscopy alone compared to 70% with LC-OCT. LC-OCT showed a high sensitivity (98%) and specificity (80%) compared to histology, and these were even higher (100% sensitivity and 97% specificity) in the subgroup of lesions with high diagnostic confidence. Interobserver agreement was nearly perfect (95%). The combination of dermoscopy and LC-OCT reached a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 81.2% in all cases and increased to sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 94.9% in cases with a high diagnostic confidence. The performance of LC-OCT was influenced by the image quality but not by the anatomical location of the lesion. The most specific morphological LC-OCT criteria in BCCs compared to non-BCCs were: less defined dermoepidermal junction (DEJ), hyporeflective tumor lobules, and dark rim. The most relevant features of the subgroup of superficial BCCs (sBCCs) were: string of pearls pattern and absence of epidermal thinning. Our diagnostic confidence, sensitivity, and specificity in detecting BCCs in the context of clinically equivocal lesions significantly improved using LC-OCT in comparison to dermoscopy only. Operator training for image acquisition is fundamental to achieve the best results. Not only the differential diagnosis of BCC, but also BCC subtyping can be performed at bedside with LC-OCT.

It is known that actinic keratoses (AKs) can progress to invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The histological PRO grading of AKs is based on the growth pattern of basal keratinocytes and relates to their progression risk. AKs can be non-invasively characterized by line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT). The aim of the study was to define criteria for an LC-OCT grading of AKs based on the PRO classification and to correlate it with its histological counterpart. To evaluate the interobserver agreement for the LC-OCT PRO classification, fifty AKs were imaged by LC-OCT and biopsied for histopathology. PRO histological grading was assessed by an expert consensus, while two evaluator groups separately performed LC-OCT grading on vertical sections. The agreement between LC-OCT and histological PRO grading was 75% for all lesions (weighted kappa 0.66, 95% CI 0.48–0.83, p ≤ 0.001) and 85.4% when comparing the subgroups PRO I vs. PRO II/III (weighted kappa 0.64, 95% CI 0.40–0.88, p ≤ 0.001). The interobserver agreement for LC-OCT was 90% (Cohen’s kappa 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–0.91, p ≤ 0.001). In this pilot study, we demonstrated that LC-OCT is potentially able to classify AKs based on the basal growth pattern of keratinocytes, in-vivo reproducing the PRO classification, with strong interobserver agreement and a good correlation with histopathology.

Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common skin cancer in situ that can progress to invasive SCC. Line-field confocal optical coherence tomography (LC-OCT) has emerged as a non-invasive imaging technique that can aid in diagnosis. Recently, machine-learning algorithms have been developed that can automatically assess the PRO score of AKs based on the dermo-epidermal junction’s (DEJ’s) protrusion on LC-OCT images. A dataset of 19.898 LC-OCT images from 80 histologically confirmed AK lesions was used to test the performance of a previous validated artificial intelligence (AI)-based LC-OCT assessment algorithm. AI-based PRO score assessment was compared to the imaging experts’ visual score. Additionally, undulation of the DEJ, the number of protrusions detected within the image, and the maximum depth of the protrusions were computed. Our results show that AI-automated PRO grading is highly comparable to the visual score, with an agreement of 71.3% for the lesions evaluated. Furthermore, this AI-based assessment was significantly faster than the regular visual PRO score assessment. The results confirm our previous findings of the pilot study in a larger cohort that the AI-based grading of LC-OCT images is a reliable and fast tool to optimize the efficiency of visual PRO score grading. This technology has the potential to improve the accuracy and speed of AK diagnosis and may lead to better clinical outcomes for patients.

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer, requiring an early diagnosis and accurate margin definition to prevent functional and cosmetic complications. Traditional methods using clinical and dermoscopic images (C&D) often rely on biopsies and histology for final validation. Non‐invasive techniques like LC‐OCT, enabling ‘digital biopsies’, are promising alternatives, but remain underutilized due to the expertise required. The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms is a promising approach to assist dermatologists in their diagnosis and support the broader adoption of such technologies. Objectives: We present a real‐time AI assistant for BCC diagnosis with LC‐OCT, which is, to date, the only real‐time AI model across all dermatological imaging modalities. The study aims to quantify the model's effectiveness when used by dermatologists with different levels of expertise and compare its performance with traditional methods and unaided LC‐OCT. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study involved 43 dermatologists in a double‐rounded quiz on 200 equivocal BCC lesions. Diagnoses were first made on C&D images, then with LC‐OCT or AI‐assisted LC‐OCT in a randomized manner. Results: AI‐assisted LC‐OCT significantly improves dermatologists' diagnostic performance in detecting BCC (+25.8 points in sensitivity and +16.8 points in specificity compared to C&D), particularly benefiting those with less LC‐OCT experience, effectively bridging a 2‐year gap of expertise. These results highlight the potential for broader clinical adoption through AI assistance and underscore its promise in reducing the need for invasive procedures and improving patient outcomes. Conclusions: These results support a broader adoption of LC‐OCT use in clinical practice thanks to AI assistance and underscore its promise in reducing the need for invasive procedures and improving patient outcomes.