Search

The clinical differentiation of face and scalp lesions (FSLs) is challenging even for trained dermatologists. Studies comparing the diagnostic performance of a convolutional neural network (CNN) with dermatologists in FSL are lacking.A market-approved CNN (Moleanalyzer-Pro, FotoFinder Systems) was used for binary classifications of 100 dermoscopic images of FSL. The same lesions were used in a two-level reader study including 64 dermatologists (level I: dermoscopy only; level II: dermoscopy, clinical close-up images, textual information). Primary endpoints were the CNN's sensitivity and specificity in comparison with the dermatologists' management decisions in level II. Generalizability of the CNN results was tested by using four additional external data sets.The CNN's sensitivity, specificity and ROC AUC were 96.2% [87.0%-98.9%], 68.8% [54.7%-80.1%] and 0.929 [0.880-0.978], respectively. In level II, the dermatologists' management decisions showed a mean sensitivity of 84.2% [82.2%-86.2%] and specificity of 69.4% [66.0%-72.8%]. When fixing the CNN's specificity at the dermatologists' mean specificity (69.4%), the CNN's sensitivity (96.2% [87.0%-98.9%]) was significantly higher than that of dermatologists (84.2% [82.2%-86.2%]; p 0.001). Dermatologists of all training levels were outperformed by the CNN (all p 0.001). In confirmation, the CNN's accuracy (83.0%) was significantly higher than dermatologists' accuracies in level II management decisions (all p 0.001). The CNN's performance was largely confirmed in three additional external data sets but particularly showed a reduced specificity in one Australian data set including FSL on severely sun-damaged skin.When applied as an assistant system, the CNN's higher sensitivity at an equivalent specificity may result in an improved early detection of face and scalp skin cancers.

Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) efficiently differentiate skin lesions by image analysis. Studies comparing a market-approved CNN in a broad range of diagnoses to dermatologists working under less artificial conditions are lacking. One hundred cases of pigmented/non-pigmented skin cancers and benign lesions were used for a two-level reader study in 96 dermatologists (level I: dermoscopy only; level II: clinical close-up images, dermoscopy, and textual information). Additionally, dermoscopic images were classified by a CNN approved for the European market as a medical device (Moleanalyzer Pro, FotoFinder Systems, Bad Birnbach, Germany). Primary endpoints were the sensitivity and specificity of the CNN's dichotomous classification in comparison with the dermatologists' management decisions. Secondary endpoints included the dermatologists' diagnostic decisions, their performance according to their level of experience, and the CNN's area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristics (ROC). The CNN revealed a sensitivity, specificity, and ROC AUC with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 95.0% (95% CI 83.5% to 98.6%), 76.7% (95% CI 64.6% to 85.6%), and 0.918 (95% CI 0.866-0.970), respectively. In level I, the dermatologists' management decisions showed a mean sensitivity and specificity of 89.0% (95% CI 87.4% to 90.6%) and 80.7% (95% CI 78.8% to 82.6%). With level II information, the sensitivity significantly improved to 94.1% (95% CI 93.1% to 95.1%; P < 0.001), while the specificity remained unchanged at 80.4% (95% CI 78.4% to 82.4%; P = 0.97). When fixing the CNN's specificity at the mean specificity of the dermatologists' management decision in level II (80.4%), the CNN's sensitivity was almost equal to that of human raters, at 95% (95% CI 83.5% to 98.6%) versus 94.1% (95% CI 93.1% to 95.1%); P = 0.1. In contrast, dermatologists were outperformed by the CNN in their level I management decisions and level I and II diagnostic decisions. More experienced dermatologists frequently surpassed the CNN's performance. Under less artificial conditions and in a broader spectrum of diagnoses, the CNN and most dermatologists performed on the same level. Dermatologists are trained to integrate information from a range of sources rendering comparative studies that are solely based on one single case image inadequate.