Search

Background: Early accurate detection of all skin cancer types is important to guide appropriate management and improve morbidity and survival. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually a localised skin cancer but with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue, whereas cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) and melanoma are higher risk skin cancers with the potential to metastasise and ultimately lead to death. When used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, or both, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) may help to identify cancers eligible for non-surgical treatment without the need for a diagnostic biopsy, particularly in people with suspected BCC. Any potential benefit must be balanced against the risk of any misdiagnoses., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of RCM for the detection of BCC, cSCC, or any skin cancer in adults with any suspicious lesion and lesions that are difficult to diagnose (equivocal); and to compare its accuracy with that of usual practice (visual inspection or dermoscopy, or both)., Search Methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles., Selection Criteria: Studies of any design that evaluated the accuracy of RCM alone, or RCM in comparison to visual inspection or dermoscopy, or both, in adults with lesions suspicious for skin cancer compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up, or both., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities using the bivariate hierarchical model. For computation of likely numbers of true-positive, false-positive, false-negative, and true-negative findings in the 'Summary of findings' tables, we applied summary sensitivity and specificity estimates to lower quartile, median and upper quartiles of the prevalence observed in the study groups. We also investigated the impact of observer experience., Main Results: The review included 10 studies reporting on 11 study cohorts. All 11 cohorts reported data for the detection of BCC, including 2037 lesions (464 with BCC); and four cohorts reported data for the detection of cSCC, including 834 lesions (71 with cSCC). Only one study also reported data for the detection of BCC or cSCC using dermoscopy, limiting comparisons between RCM and dermoscopy. Studies were at high or unclear risk of bias across almost all methodological quality domains, and were of high or unclear concern regarding applicability of the evidence. Selective participant recruitment, unclear blinding of the reference test, and exclusions due to image quality or technical difficulties were observed. It was unclear whether studies were representative of populations eligible for testing with RCM, and test interpretation was often undertaken using images, remotely from the participant and the interpreter blinded to clinical information that would normally be available in practice.Meta-analysis found RCM to be more sensitive but less specific for the detection of BCC in studies of participants with equivocal lesions (sensitivity 94%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 79% to 98%; specificity 85%, 95% CI 72% to 92%; 3 studies) compared to studies that included any suspicious lesion (sensitivity 76%, 95% CI 45% to 92%; specificity 95%, 95% CI 66% to 99%; 4 studies), although CIs were wide. At the median prevalence of disease of 12.5% observed in studies including any suspicious lesion, applying these results to a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions results in 30 BCCs missed with 44 false-positive results (lesions misdiagnosed as BCCs). At the median prevalence of disease of 15% observed in studies of equivocal lesions, nine BCCs would be missed with 128 false-positive results in a population of 1000 lesions. Across both sets of studies, up to 15% of these false-positive lesions were observed to be melanomas mistaken for BCCs. There was some suggestion of higher sensitivities in studies with more experienced observers. Summary sensitivity and specificity could not be estimated for the detection of cSCC due to paucity of data., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence for the use of RCM for the diagnosis of BCC or cSCC in either population group. A possible role for RCM in clinical practice is as a tool to avoid diagnostic biopsies in lesions with a relatively high clinical suspicion of BCC. The potential for, and consequences of, misclassification of other skin cancers such as melanoma as BCCs requires further research. Importantly, data are lacking that compare RCM to standard clinical practice (with or without dermoscopy).

Background: Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Early detection and treatment is key to improving survival; however, anxiety around missing early cases needs to be balanced against appropriate levels of referral and excision of benign lesions. Used in conjunction with clinical or dermoscopic suspicion of malignancy, or both, reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) may reduce unnecessary excisions without missing melanoma cases., Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of reflectance confocal microscopy for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and lesions that are difficult to diagnose, and to compare its accuracy with that of dermoscopy., Search Methods: We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; and seven other databases. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles., Selection Criteria: Studies of any design that evaluated RCM alone, or RCM in comparison to dermoscopy, in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated summary sensitivities and specificities per algorithm and threshold using the bivariate hierarchical model. To compare RCM with dermoscopy, we grouped studies by population (defined by difficulty of lesion diagnosis) and combined data using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of specificity at the point on the SROC curve with 90% sensitivity as this value lies within the estimates for the majority of analyses. We investigated the impact of using a purposely developed RCM algorithm and in-person test interpretation., Main Results: The search identified 18 publications reporting on 19 study cohorts with 2838 lesions (including 658 with melanoma), which provided 67 datasets for RCM and seven for dermoscopy. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias across almost all domains and of high or unclear concern regarding applicability of the evidence. Selective participant recruitment, lack of blinding of the reference test to the RCM result, and differential verification were particularly problematic. Studies may not be representative of populations eligible for RCM, and test interpretation was often undertaken remotely from the patient and blinded to clinical information.Meta-analysis found RCM to be more accurate than dermoscopy in studies of participants with any lesion suspicious for melanoma and in participants with lesions that were more difficult to diagnose (equivocal lesion populations). Assuming a fixed sensitivity of 90% for both tests, specificities were 82% for RCM and 42% for dermoscopy for any lesion suspicious for melanoma (9 RCM datasets; 1452 lesions and 370 melanomas). For a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions at the median observed melanoma prevalence of 30%, this equated to a reduction in unnecessary excisions with RCM of 280 compared to dermoscopy, with 30 melanomas missed by both tests. For studies in equivocal lesions, specificities of 86% would be observed for RCM and 49% for dermoscopy (7 RCM datasets; 1177 lesions and 180 melanomas). At the median observed melanoma prevalence of 20%, this reduced unnecessary excisions by 296 with RCM compared with dermoscopy, with 20 melanomas missed by both tests. Across all populations, algorithms and thresholds assessed, the sensitivity and specificity of the Pellacani RCM score at a threshold of three or greater were estimated at 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 87 to 95) for RCM and 72% (95% CI 62 to 81) for dermoscopy., Authors' Conclusions: RCM may have a potential role in clinical practice, particularly for the assessment of lesions that are difficult to diagnose using visual inspection and dermoscopy alone, where the evidence suggests that RCM may be both more sensitive and specific in comparison to dermoscopy. Given the paucity of data to allow comparison with dermoscopy, the results presented require further confirmation in prospective studies comparing RCM with dermoscopy in a real-world setting in a representative population.

Wells syndrome is a rare disorder of unknown etiology. Precipitants include insect bites, infections, medications, malignancies, and vaccinations. Possible mechanisms include hypersensitivity reactions to antigens. There are four reports in the literature of Wells syndrome precipitated by vaccinations (hepatitis B vaccine, tetanus vaccine, tetanus-diptheria vaccine and triple antigen vaccine). We present a further case of Wells syndrome in a 22-month-old child after influenza vaccine as a novel trigger not previously reported., (© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)