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.

Background: Early detection of melanoma can be lifesaving but this remains a challenge. Recent diagnostic studies have revealed the superiority of artificial intelligence (AI) in classifying dermoscopic images of melanoma and nevi, concluding that these algorithms should assist a dermatologist’s diagnoses. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether AI support improves the accuracy and overall diagnostic performance of dermatologists in the dichotomous image–based discrimination between melanoma and nevus. Methods: Twelve board-certified dermatologists were presented disjoint sets of 100 unique dermoscopic images of melanomas and nevi (total of 1200 unique images), and they had to classify the images based on personal experience alone (part I) and with the support of a trained convolutional neural network (CNN, part II). Additionally, dermatologists were asked to rate their confidence in their final decision for each image. Results: While the mean specificity of the dermatologists based on personal experience alone remained almost unchanged (70.6% vs 72.4%; P=.54) with AI support, the mean sensitivity and mean accuracy increased significantly (59.4% vs 74.6%; P=.003 and 65.0% vs 73.6%; P=.002, respectively) with AI support. Out of the 10% (10/94; 95% CI 8.4%-11.8%) of cases where dermatologists were correct and AI was incorrect, dermatologists on average changed to the incorrect answer for 39% (4/10; 95% CI 23.2%-55.6%) of cases. When dermatologists were incorrect and AI was correct (25/94, 27%; 95% CI 24.0%-30.1%), dermatologists changed their answers to the correct answer for 46% (11/25; 95% CI 33.1%-58.4%) of cases. Additionally, the dermatologists’ average confidence in their decisions increased when the CNN confirmed their decision and decreased when the CNN disagreed, even when the dermatologists were correct. Reported values are based on the mean of all participants. Whenever absolute values are shown, the denominator and numerator are approximations as every dermatologist ended up rating a varying number of images due to a quality control step. Conclusions: The findings of our study show that AI support can improve the overall accuracy of the dermatologists in the dichotomous image–based discrimination between melanoma and nevus. This supports the argument for AI-based tools to aid clinicians in skin lesion classification and provides a rationale for studies of such classifiers in real-life settings, wherein clinicians can integrate additional information such as patient age and medical history into their decisions.

Background Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin cancer in the general population. Treatments vary from Mohs surgery to topical therapy, depending on the subtype. Dermoscopy, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) have gained a foothold in daily clinical practice to optimize diagnosis and subtype-oriented treatment. The new device Line-field confocal OCT (LC-OCT) allows imaging at high resolution and depth but its use is not yet been investigated in larger studies. Objectives To evaluate the main LC-OCT criteria for the diagnosis and subtyping of BCC in comparison to histopathology, OCT and RCM. Methods Fifty-two histopathologically confirmed BCCs were evaluated for imaging criteria. Their frequency, predictive values and ROC curves were calculated. A multinominal regression with stepwise variables selection to distinguish BCC subtypes was performed. Results Nodular BCCs were mainly characterized by atypical keratinocytes, altered DEJ, tumour nests in the dermis, dark clefting, prominent vascularisation and white hyperreflective stroma. Superficial BCCs showed a thickening of the epidermis due to a series of tumour lobules with clear connection to the DEJ (string of pearls pattern). Infiltrative BCCs were characterized by elongated hyporeflective tumour strands, surrounded by bright collagen (shoal of fish). The overall BCC subtype agreement between LC-OCT and conventional histology was 90.4 % (95% CI: 79.0, 96.8). Conclusion LC-OCT allows the non-invasive, real time identification of BCCs and their subtypes in vertical, horizontal and 3D mode compared to histology, RCM and OCT. Further larger studies are needed to better explore the clinical applications of this promising device.

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.