Skin cancer detection by deep learning and sound analysis algorithms: A prospective clinical study of an elementary dermoscope

Background Skin cancer (SC), especially melanoma, is a growing public health burden. Experimental studies have indicated a potential diagnostic role for deep learning (DL) algorithms in identifying SC at varying sensitivities. Previously, it was demonstrated that diagnostics by dermoscopy are improved by applying an additional sonification (data to sound waves conversion) layer on DL algorithms. The aim of the study was to determine the impact of image quality on accuracy of diagnosis by sonification employing a rudimentary skin magnifier with polarized light (SMP). Methods Dermoscopy images acquired by SMP were processed by a first deep learning algorithm and sonified. Audio output was further analyzed by a different secondary DL. Study criteria outcomes of SMP were specificity and sensitivity, which were further processed by a F2-score, i.e. applying a twice extra weight to sensitivity over positive predictive values. Findings Patients (n = 73) fulfilling inclusion criteria were referred to biopsy. SMP analysis metrics resulted in a receiver operator characteristic curve AUC's of 0.814 (95% CI, 0.798–0.831). SMP achieved a F2-score sensitivity of 91.7%, specificity of 41.8% and positive predictive value of 57.3%. Diagnosing the same set of patients' lesions by an advanced dermoscope resulted in a F2-score sensitivity of 89.5%, specificity of 57.8% and a positive predictive value of 59.9% (P=NS). Interpretation DL processing of dermoscopic images followed by sonification results in an accurate diagnostic output for SMP, implying that the quality of the dermoscope is not the major factor influencing DL diagnosis of skin cancer. Present system might assist all healthcare providers as a feasible computer-assisted detection system. Fund Bostel Technologies. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03362138

[1]  Davide Rocchesso,et al.  The Sonification Handbook , 2011 .

[2]  Riccardo Bono,et al.  Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of three dermoscopic algorithmic methods in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic lesions: the importance of light brown structureless areas in differentiating atypical melanocytic nevi from thin melanomas. , 2007, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[3]  Matthias Bethge,et al.  Comparing deep neural networks against humans: object recognition when the signal gets weaker , 2017, ArXiv.

[4]  John R. Smith,et al.  Deep Learning, Sparse Coding, and SVM for Melanoma Recognition in Dermoscopy Images , 2015, MLMI.

[5]  H. Haenssle,et al.  Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melanoma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists , 2018, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[6]  D M Parkin,et al.  Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods , 2018, International journal of cancer.

[7]  R Hofmann-Wellenhof,et al.  Clinical performance of the Nevisense system in cutaneous melanoma detection: an international, multicentre, prospective and blinded clinical trial on efficacy and safety , 2014, The British journal of dermatology.

[8]  M. Emre Celebi,et al.  Dermoscopy Image Analysis: Overview and Future Directions , 2019, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics.

[9]  S. Swetter,et al.  Reexamining the Threshold for Reexcision of Histologically Transected Dysplastic Nevi. , 2016, JAMA dermatology.

[10]  R. B. Aldridge,et al.  Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosing melanoma in adults. , 2018, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[11]  B.N. Walker,et al.  Dermoscopy diagnosis of cancerous lesions utilizing dual deep learning algorithms via visual and audio (sonification) outputs: Laboratory and prospective observational studies , 2019, EBioMedicine.

[12]  K. Vermeulen,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and cost‐effectiveness of dermoscopy in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial , 2014, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.

[13]  M. Weinstock,et al.  Pathologists’ diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[14]  S. Michiels,et al.  Update of survival and cost of metastatic melanoma with new drugs: Estimations from the MelBase cohort. , 2018, European journal of cancer.

[15]  Noel C. F. Codella,et al.  Skin lesion analysis toward melanoma detection: A challenge at the 2017 International symposium on biomedical imaging (ISBI), hosted by the international skin imaging collaboration (ISIC) , 2016, 2018 IEEE 15th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI 2018).

[16]  Patricio A. Vela,et al.  A Comparative Study of Efficient Initialization Methods for the K-Means Clustering Algorithm , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[17]  Dirk B Walther,et al.  Scene content is predominantly conveyed by high spatial frequencies in scene-selective visual cortex , 2017, PloS one.

[18]  Jonhan Ho,et al.  Estimating the cost of skin cancer detection by dermatology providers in a large health care system , 2017, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[19]  Milind Rajadhyaksha,et al.  Differences between polarized light dermoscopy and immersion contact dermoscopy for the evaluation of skin lesions. , 2007, Archives of dermatology.

[20]  Cristian Navarrete-Dechent,et al.  Automated Dermatological Diagnosis: Hype or Reality? , 2018, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[21]  Ken Kobayashi,et al.  Accuracy in melanoma detection: a 10-year multicenter survey. , 2012, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[22]  H. Haenssle,et al.  Melanomas vs. nevi in high‐risk patients under long‐term monitoring with digital dermatoscopy: do melanomas and nevi already differ at baseline? , 2017, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV.