title: [Sequential digital dermatoscopic imaging. How much time is required per patient?].
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Melanoma screening is possible using the naked eye, a loupe, a dermatoscope or a sequential digital dermatoscopic imaging (SDDI) device. The latter provides photodocumentation and makes it possible to assess changes over time. One potential disadvantage of this method has been felt to be in the time expenditure per patient.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  Objective was to prospectively assess the time required for routine melanoma screening, using a SDDI device.
  
  
  METHODS
  All patients screened for melanoma using a SDDI system (Mole Max2) in a private dermatology practice during 1 year were included prospectively. The time needed per patient was measured. Suspicious lesions were excised and histologically evaluated. The number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. Excisions performed exclusively due to cosmetic reasons were not included.
  
  
  RESULTS
  381 patients with 10,356 melanocytic lesions were documented using SDDI and clinically assessed (mean: 27.18 melanocytic lesions per patient; min:1, max:110). Mean time consumption per lesion was 15.4 s. (min:3, max:57) and per patient about 7 min. 98 suspicious lesions were excised, among them13 melanomas; yielding a NNT of 7.54.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  SDDI can be easily integrated into the daily routine; a variety of systems are available. The time required is reasonable, about 7 min per patient and about 15 s per lesion. The quality of the evaluation is operator-dependent; it can be evaluated by determining the NNT. A major advantage of this diagnostic procedure is the photodocumentation which makes it possible to assess potential progression of a melanocytic lesion.
authors.affiliation: Dermatologische Ordination Hall i.T., Thurnfeldgasse 3a, 6060, Hall in Tirol, Österreich.
authors.forename: L
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Kofler
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Egger
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Kofler
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001317:Austria / Q000453:epidemiology; D046169:Dermoscopy / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004282:Documentation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008545:Melanoma / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000473:pathology*; D008875:Middle Aged; D015588:Observer Variation; D015995:Prevalence; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D012815:Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted; D012878:Skin Neoplasms / Q000473:pathology*; D013996:Time and Motion Studies; D016526:Workload / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Dermatol Clin. 2013 Oct;31(4):521-4, vii
references.pmid: 24075541
references.citation: Clin Exp Dermatol. 2012 Jan;37(1):6-9
references.pmid: 21981313
references.citation: Dermatol Surg. 2007 Oct;33(10):1198-206; discussion 1205-6
references.pmid: 17903152
references.citation: Melanoma Res. 2003 Apr;13(2):179-82
references.pmid: 12690302
references.citation: Br J Dermatol. 2004 Apr;150(4):687-92
references.pmid: 15099364
references.citation: Br J Dermatol. 2003 Dec;149(6):1159-64
references.pmid: 14674892
references.citation: Br J Dermatol. 2012 Oct;167(4):778-86
references.pmid: 22564185
references.citation: BMJ. 2003 Aug 16;327(7411):375
references.pmid: 12919990
references.citation: Br J Dermatol. 2005 Jan;152(1):87-92
references.pmid: 15656806
references.citation: Arch Dermatol. 2003 Mar;139(3):282-8
references.pmid: 12622618
references.citation: J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2013 Jun;11(6):509-12
references.pmid: 23452303
references.citation: Lancet. 2002 Aug 24;360(9333):587-91
references.pmid: 12241928
references.citation: Med J Aust. 2004 Jan 5;180(1):16-9
references.pmid: 14709122