Cited by 11AI in cancer detectionNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

A deep learning algorithm to detect cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma on frozen sections in Mohs micrographic surgery: A retrospective assessment

Open access
Davis, Matthew J., Srinivasan, Gokul, Chacko, Rachael, Chen, Sophie, Suvarna, Anish, Vaickus, Louis J., Torres, Veronica C., Hodge, Sassan +6 more·2024·Experimental Dermatology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Abstract Importance Intraoperative margin analysis is crucial for the successful removal of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC). Artificial intelligence technologies (AI) have previously demonstrated potential for facilitating rapid and complete tumor removal using intraoperative margin assessment for basal cell carcinoma. However, the varied morphologies of cSCC present challenges for AI margin assessment. Objective To develop and evaluate the accuracy of an AI algorithm for real-time histologic margin analysis of cSCC. Design A retrospective cohort study was conducted using frozen cSCC section slides and adjacent tissues. Setting This study was conducted in a tertiary care academic center. Participants Patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery for cSCC between January and March 2020. Exposures Frozen section slides were scanned and annotated, delineating benign tissue structures, inflammation, and tumor to develop an AI algorithm for real-time margin analysis. Patients were stratified by tumor differentiation status. Epithelial tissues including epidermis and hair follicles were annotated for moderate-well to well differentiated cSCC tumors. A convolutional neural network workflow was used to extract histomorphological features predictive of cSCC at 50-micron resolution. Main Outcomes and Measures The performance of the AI algorithm in identifying cSCC at 50-micron resolution was reported using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Accuracy was also reported by tumor differentiation status and by delineation of cSCC from epidermis. Model performance using histomorphological features alone was compared to architectural features (i.e., tissue context) for well-differentiated tumors. Results The AI algorithm demonstrated proof of concept for identifying cSCC with high accuracy. Accuracy differed by differentiation status, driven by challenges in separating cSCC from epidermis using histomorphological features alone for well-differentiated tumors. Consideration of broader tissue context through architectural features improved the ability to delineate tumor from epidermis. Conclusions and Relevance Incorporating AI into the surgical workflow may improve efficiency and completeness of real-time margin assessment for cSCC removal, particularly in cases of moderately and poorly differentiated tumors/neoplasms. Further algorithmic improvement is necessary to remain sensitive to the unique epidermal landscape of well-differentiated tumors, and to map tumors to their original anatomical position/orientation. Future studies should assess the efficiency improvements and cost benefits and address other confounding pathologies such as inflammation and nuclei. Funding sources JL is supported by NIH grants R24GM141194, P20GM104416 and P20GM130454. Support for this work was also provided by the Prouty Dartmouth Cancer Center development funds. Key Points Question How can the efficiency and accuracy of real-time intraoperative margin analysis for the removal of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) be improved, and how can tumor differentiation be incorporated into this approach? Findings A proof-of-concept deep learning algorithm was trained, validated, and tested on frozen section whole slide images (WSI) for a retrospective cohort of cSCC cases, demonstrating high accuracy in identifying cSCC and related pathologies. Histomorphology alone was found to be insufficient to delineate tumor from epidermis in histologic identification of well-differentiated cSCC. Incorporation of surrounding tissue architecture and shape improved the ability to delineate tumor from normal tissue. Meaning Integrating artificial intelligence into surgical procedures has the potential to enhance the thoroughness and efficiency of intraoperative margin analysis for cSCC removal. However, accurately accounting for the epidermal tissue based on the tumor’s differentiation status requires specialized algorithms that consider the surrounding tissue context. To meaningfully integrate AI algorithms into clinical practice, further algorithmic refinement is needed, as well as the mapping of tumors to their original surgical site, and evaluation of the cost and efficacy of these approaches to address existing bottlenecks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/exd.14949

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A deep learning algorithm to detect cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma on frozen sections during Mohs micrographic surgery showed good accuracy for moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC but struggled with well-differentiated cases.

    “The model showed good accuracy for moderate to poorly differentiated cSCC but struggled with well-differentiated cases, highlighting the need to integrate tissue architecture for improved performance in real-time margin assessment.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davis, M. J., Srinivasan, G., Chacko, R., Chen, S., Suvarna, A., Vaickus, L. J., Torres, V. C., Hodge, S., Chen, E. Y., Preum, S., Samkoe, K. S., Christensen, B. C., LeBoeuf, M. R., & Levy, J. J.
Affiliations
  • Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • Caddo Parish Magnet High School Shreveport Louisiana USA
  • Thomas Jefferson School for Science and Technology Alexandria Virginia USA
Corresponding author
  • Davis, Matthew J.
  • Levy, Joshua J.
Venue
Experimental Dermatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-10-21
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
e14949-e14949
ISSN
  • 0906-6705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0625
OpenAlex
W4387840704
Cited by
11
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4
FWCI
1.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Experimental Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (P20GM104416, P20GM130454)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, Mohs micrographic surgery, intraoperative margin assessment, frozen section histology, convolutional neural networks, artificial intelligence in dermatology, well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review