Open AccessComparison of different optical coherence tomography devices for diagnosis of non‐melanoma skin cancer
Author(s) -
Schuh S.,
Kaestle R.,
Sattler E.,
Welzel J.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
skin research and technology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.521
H-Index - 69
eISSN - 1600-0846
pISSN - 0909-752X
DOI - 10.1111/srt.12277
Subject(s) - optical coherence tomography , skin cancer , medicine , basal cell carcinoma , stratum corneum , dermatology , histology , melanoma , cancer , basal cell , pathology , ophthalmology , cancer research
Purpose To compare the diagnostic imaging ability of three different optical coherence tomography ( OCT ) devices in non‐melanoma skin cancer ( NMSC ). Methods Thirty actinic keratoses ( AK s) and 27 basal cell carcinomas ( BCC s) of 29 patients were examined with three different OCT devices, VivoSight ® , Callisto ® and Skintell ® . Results Complete data sets were available for 16 BCC s and 10 AK s of 18 patients. All OCT devices were able to discriminate BCC s and AK s significantly from perilesional normal skin due to lower signal intensities as well as a thicker stratum corneum and epidermis in AK s. A significant decrease in the signal intensity and thickness of all skin layers was noted with Skintell ® in contrast to VivoSight ® and Callisto ® . OCT comparisons revealed only slight differences between VivoSight ® and Callisto ® . Regarding BCC tumor thickness VivoSight ® and Callisto ® correlated well, histology did not correlate with the three OCT devices, whereas Skintell ® showed no correlation with VivoSight ® , Callisto ® or histology. Conclusion All tested OCT devices could identify BCC s and AK s objectively through standardized measurement of signal intensity and skin layer thickness. Due to their technical specifications (resolution, penetration depth), each of the OCT systems offers additional and special information on NMSC .