Reproducible Naevus Counts Using 3D Total Body Photography and Convolutional Neural Networks

Background: The number of naevi on a person is the strongest risk factor for melanoma; however, naevus counting is highly variable due to lack of consistent methodology and lack of inter-rater agreement. Machine learning has been shown to be a valuable tool for image classification in dermatology. Objectives: To test whether automated, reproducible naevus counts are possible through the combination of convolutional neural networks (CNN) and three-dimensional (3D) total body imaging. Methods: Total body images from a study of naevi in the general population were used for the training (82 subjects, 57,742 lesions) and testing (10 subjects; 4,868 lesions) datasets for the development of a CNN. Lesions were labelled as naevi, or not (“non-naevi”), by a senior dermatologist as the gold standard. Performance of the CNN was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen’s kappa, and evaluated at the lesion level and person level. Results: Lesion-level analysis comparing the automated counts to the gold standard showed a sensitivity and specificity of 79% (76–83%) and 91% (90–92%), respectively, for lesions ≥2 mm, and 84% (75–91%) and 91% (88–94%) for lesions ≥5 mm. Cohen’s kappa was 0.56 (0.53–0.59) indicating moderate agreement for naevi ≥2 mm, and substantial agreement (0.72, 0.63–0.80) for naevi ≥5 mm. For the 10 individuals in the test set, person-level agreement was assessed as categories with 70% agreement between the automated and gold standard counts. Agreement was lower in subjects with numerous seborrhoeic keratoses. Conclusion: Automated naevus counts with reasonable agreement to those of an expert clinician are possible through the combination of 3D total body photography and CNNs. Such an algorithm may provide a faster, reproducible method over the traditional in person total body naevus counts.

[1]  John Paoli,et al.  Human–computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition , 2020, Nature Medicine.

[2]  H. Soyer,et al.  Self‐reported naevus density may lead to misclassification of melanoma risk , 2019, The British journal of dermatology.

[3]  R. Hofmann-Wellenhof,et al.  Comparison of the accuracy of human readers versus machine-learning algorithms for pigmented skin lesion classification: an open, web-based, international, diagnostic study. , 2019, The Lancet. Oncology.

[4]  D. Whiteman,et al.  Risk Stratification for Melanoma: Models Derived and Validated in a Purpose-Designed Prospective Cohort , 2018, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  S. Menzies,et al.  ‘Mind your Moles’ study: protocol of a prospective cohort study of melanocytic naevi , 2018, BMJ Open.

[6]  S. Menzies,et al.  Clinical Perspective of 3D Total Body Photography for Early Detection and Screening of Melanoma , 2018, Front. Med..

[7]  D. Grossman,et al.  Reduction in nevus biopsies in patients monitored by total body photography. , 2016, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[8]  T. Spector,et al.  Prediction of high naevus count in a healthy U.K. population to estimate melanoma risk , 2016, The British journal of dermatology.

[9]  Scott T Acton,et al.  Total body photography for skin cancer screening , 2015, International journal of dermatology.

[10]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Deep Learning , 2015, Nature.

[11]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Caffe: Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding , 2014, ACM Multimedia.

[12]  Jon Emery,et al.  Risk Prediction Models for Melanoma: A Systematic Review , 2014, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[13]  D. Whiteman,et al.  Good test-retest reproducibility for an instrument to capture self-reported melanoma risk factors. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[14]  Michael A. King,et al.  Counting moles automatically from back images , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[15]  P. Carli,et al.  Melanoma detection rate and concordance between self‐skin examination and clinical evaluation in patients attending a pigmented lesion clinic in Italy , 2002, The British journal of dermatology.

[16]  P Sasieni,et al.  Genetics of risk factors for melanoma: an adult twin study of nevi and freckles. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  R. Marks,et al.  The prevalence of seborrhoeic keratoses in an Australian population: does exposure to sunlight play a part in their frequency? , 1997, The British journal of dermatology.

[18]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Naevi and pigmentary characteristics as risk factors for melanoma in a high‐risk population: A case‐control study in new South Wales, Australia , 1996, International journal of cancer.

[19]  D. McLean,et al.  The epidemiology of acquired melanocytic nevi. A brief review. , 1995, Dermatologic clinics.

[20]  D. Moore,et al.  Nevus counting as a risk factor for melanoma: comparison of self-count with count by physician. , 1994, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[21]  R. Sanson-Fisher,et al.  Reliability of naevus counts in identifying individuals at high risk of malignant melanoma , 1994, The British journal of dermatology.

[22]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[23]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[24]  P. Boyle,et al.  Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: I. Common and atypical naevi. , 2005, European journal of cancer.

[25]  J. Mission,et al.  Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology , 2004 .

[26]  C. Garbe,et al.  Agreement between self-assessment of melanocytic nevi by patients and dermatologic examination. , 2000, American journal of epidemiology.