Dermatoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy for basal cell carcinoma diagnosis and diagnosis prediction score: A prospective and multicenter study on 1005 lesions

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually diagnosed by clinical and dermatoscopy examination, but diagnostic accuracy may be suboptimal. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging increases skin cancer diagnostic accuracy. Objective: To evaluate additional benefit in diagnostic accuracy of handheld RCM in a prospective controlled clinical setting. Methods: A prospective, multicenter study in 3 skin cancer reference centers in Italy enrolling consecutive lesions with clinical-dermatoscopic suspicion of BCC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04789421). Results: A total of 1005 lesions were included, of which 474 histopathologically confirmed versus 531 diagnosed by clinical-dermatoscopic-RCM correlation, confirmed with 2 years of follow-up. Specifically, 740 were confirmed BCCs. Sensitivity and specificity for dermatoscopy alone was 93.2% (95% CI, 91.2-94.9) and 51.7% (95% CI, 45.5-57.9); positive predictive value was 84.4 (95% CI, 81.7-86.8) and negative predictive value 73.3 (95% CI, 66.3-79.5). Adjunctive RCM reported higher rates: 97.8 (95% CI, 96.5-98.8) sensitivity and 86.8 (95% CI, 82.1-90.6) specificity, with positive predictive value of 95.4 (95% CI, 93.6-96.8) and negative predictive value 93.5 (95% CI, 89.7-96.2). Limitations: Study conducted in a single country. Conclusions: Adjunctive handheld RCM assessment of lesions clinically suspicious for BCC permits higher diagnostic accuracy with minimal false negative lesions.

Background: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is usually diagnosed by clinical and dermatoscopy examination, but diagnostic accuracy may be suboptimal. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging increases skin cancer diagnostic accuracy. Objective: To evaluate additional benefit in diagnostic accuracy of handheld RCM in a prospective controlled clinical setting. Methods: A prospective, multicenter study in 3 skin cancer reference centers in Italy enrolling consecutive lesions with clinical-dermatoscopic suspicion of BCC (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04789421). Results: A total of 1005 lesions were included, of which 474 histopathologically confirmed versus 531 diagnosed by clinical-dermatoscopic-RCM correlation, confirmed with 2 years of follow-up. Specifically, 740 were confirmed BCCs. Sensitivity and specificity for dermatoscopy alone was 93.2% (95% CI, 91.2-94.9) and 51.7% (95% CI, 45.5-57.9); positive predictive value was 84.4 (95% CI, 81.7-86.8) and negative predictive value 73.3 (95% CI, 66.3-79.5). Adjunctive RCM reported higher rates: 97.8 (95% CI, 96.5-98.8) sensitivity and 86.8 (95% CI, 82.1-90.6) specificity, with positive predictive value of 95.4 (95% CI, 93.6-96.8) and negative predictive value 93.5 (95% CI, 89.7-96.2). Limitations: Study conducted in a single country. Conclusions: Adjunctive handheld RCM assessment of lesions clinically suspicious for BCC permits higher diagnostic accuracy with minimal false negative lesions. ( J Am Acad Dermatol 2024;90:994-1001.)