Back to Search Start Over

Skin lesions of face and scalp – Classification by a market-approved convolutional neural network in comparison with 64 dermatologists

Authors :
Holger Andreas Haenssle
Julia Katharina Winkler
Christine Fink
Ferdinand Toberer
Alexander Enk
Wilhelm Stolz
Teresa Deinlein
Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof
Harald Kittler
Philipp Tschandl
Cliff Rosendahl
Aimilios Lallas
Andreas Blum
Mohamed Souhayel Abassi
Luc Thomas
Isabelle Tromme
Albert Rosenberger
Marie Bachelerie
Sonali Bajaj
Alise Balcere
Sophie Baricault
Clément Barthaux
Yvonne Beckenbauer
Ines Bertlich
Marie-France Bouthenet
Sophie Brassat
Philipp Marcel Buck
Kristina Buder-Bakhaya
Maria-Letizia Cappelletti
Cécile Chabbert
Julie De Labarthe
Eveline DeCoster
Michèle Dobler
Daphnée Dumon
Steffen Emmert
Julie Gachon-Buffet
Mikhail Gusarov
Franziska Hartmann
Julia Hartmann
Anke Herrmann
Isabelle Hoorens
Eva Hulstaert
Raimonds Karls
Andreea Kolonte
Christian Kromer
Céline Le Blanc Vasseux
Annabelle Levy-Roy
Pawel Majenka
Marine Marc
Veronique Martin Bourret
Nadège Michelet-Brunacci
Christina Mitteldorf
Jean Paroissien
Camille Picard
Diana Plise
Valérie Reymann
Fabrice Ribeaudeau
Pauline Richez
Hélène Roche Plaine
Deborah Salik
Elke Sattler
Sarah Schäfer
Roland Schneiderbauer
Thierry Secchi
Karen Talour
Lukas Trennheuser
Alexander Wald
Priscila Wölbing
Pascale Zukervar
Source :
European Journal of Cancer. 144:192-199
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
Elsevier BV, 2021.

Abstract

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.

Details

ISSN :
09598049
Volume :
144
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
European Journal of Cancer
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....da98409613a08d50eecb5112900633da
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.11.034