Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 1 Dermatology Practical & Conceptual Diagnostic Concordance in Tertiary (Dermatologists-to-Experts) Teledermoscopy: A Final Diagnosis-Based Study on 290 Cases Anne Marchetti,1 Stephane Dalle,1,4,5,6 Delphine Maucort-Boulch,2,3,4,5 Mona Amini-Adl,1 Sébastien Debarbieux,1 Nicolas Poulalhon,1 Marie Perier-Muzet,1 Alice Phan,1 Luc Thomas1,4,5,6 1 Service de Dermatologie, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, France 2 Service de Biostatistique-Bioinformatique, Pôle Santé Publique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, France 3 Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Évolutive, Équipe Biostatistique-Santé, Villeurbanne, France 4 Université de Lyon, Lyon, France 5 Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, France 6 Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon, France Key words: teledermoscopy, tertiary teledermatology, nail, pediatric, dermoscopy Citation: Marchetti A, Dalle S, Maucort-Boulch D, Amini-Adl M, Debarbieux S, Poulalhon N, Perier-Muzet M, Phan A, Thomas L. Diagnostic concordance in tertiary (dermatologists-to-experts) teledermoscopy: a final diagnosis-based study on 290 cases. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2020;10(3):e2020071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1003a71 Accepted: April 14, 2020; Published: June 29, 2020 Copyright: ©2020 Marchetti et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: This work is supported in part by grants from Lyon 1 University and the Hospices Civils de Lyon. Competing interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication in acquisition of data and critical revision of the manuscript and important intellectual input. A.M., S.D., and L.T. are responsible for study concept and design. A.M. and L.T. are responsible for the analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript. Statistical analysis was performed by D.M.B. Corresponding author: Prof. Luc Thomas, Department of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, 69495 Pierre Bénite, France. Email: luc.thomas@chu-lyon.fr Background: Teledermoscopy (TDS) improves diagnostic accuracy and decreases the number of un- necessary consultations. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic concordance in tertiary (dermatologist-to-experts) TDS with histopathology/follow-up–based diagnosis. Methods: A descriptive retrospective cohort study including 290 requests. Results: Perfect diagnostic concordance was found in 202 (69.7%) cases and partial agreement in 29 (10%). Disagreement was found in 59 (20.3%) cases. Perfect concordance on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion was found in 227 (78.3%) cases and disagreement in 63 (21.7%). In onychology, diagnostic concordance was perfect in 43 (76.8%) cases, partial in 7 (12.5%), and there was dis- agreement in 6 (10.7%). Final concordance on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion was perfect in 48 (85.7%) and there was disagreement in 8 (14.3%) nail cases. For pediatric requests, diagnostic concordance was perfect in 29 (65.9%) cases, partial in 5 (11.4%), and there was disagreement in 10 (22.7%). Final concordance on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion was observed in 34 (77.3%) cases, disagreement in 10 (22.7%). ABSTRACT https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1003a71 mailto:luc.thomas@chu-lyon.fr 2 Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 management. We restricted this study to dermoscopy contain- ing pictures requests made by dermatologists or skin cancer hyperspecialized GPs. In cases of multiple TD consultations for the same lesion, only the first was considered, whereas in requests for multiple lesions, each lesion was analyzed as a sin- gle statistical event. In this “real-life” study, no standardization of picturing mode was used. These pictures were analyzed by 1 among the 7 experts (at least 10 years of practice of dermos- copy and 10 publications on the field of dermoscopy) in TDS in the department; response was sent to the referring clinician and saved for analysis. Experts responded about diagnosis, possible differential diagnoses, the benign/malignant nature of the lesion, and management (excision, follow-up, biopsy, confocal microscopy, or picturing). Case Revisions All pictures and answers have been retrospectively analyzed by a dermatology resident (A.M.) and a senior expert (S.D., L.T.). Lesions were subclassified into pigmented skin lesions (PSL), amelanotic tumors (AT), nail pigmentation (NP), and other nail lesions (NL). Picture quality was assessed. The gold standard was either histopathology or rea- sonable-delay (at least 1 year) benign evolution in all cases. Indeed, the level of evidence is weaker in the second case. However, systematic surgical excision of all cases would have been unethical. Moreover, surgical recommendation for benign conditions to an expert’s eyes would have resulted in greater bias since our series could not then be considered a “real-life” one. Cases with neither histopathological nor follow-up information were excluded. The large number of pediatric and onychology cases allowed us to perform a subgroup analysis. Definitions of Concordance/Disagreement The definitions of concordance and disagreement are indi- cated in Table 1. Statistical Analysis Analyzes were done with R software (version 3.4.4, R Devel- opment Core Team. R: A Language Environment for Sta- tistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. URL: http: //www.R-project.org, 2018) by an independent statistics expert (D.M.B.). We used average, standard devi- ation, median, first and third quartile, range for continuous Introduction Diagnosis of skin cancer is challenging for solitary practicing dermatologists. Teledermatology (TD) exists in 2 modes: store-and-forward and live interactive [1]; in store-and- forward, the most used, information is sent to an electronic platform for delayed analysis. In 2 systematic reviews, TD was found inferior to face-to-face (FTF) dermatology but the accuracy was deemed acceptable by the authors [2,3]. How- ever, Coates et al pointed out some limitations of TD such as the lack of total-body skin examinations [4]. Teledermatology is classified as primary, secondary, and tertiary TD. Primary TD involves communication between patients and a general practitioner (GP). In secondary TD, GPs communicate with dermatologists. In tertiary TD, derma- tologists receive an expert opinion [1]. According to Finnane et al, the main limitation of all TD studies published since 2009 was that tele-expert diagnosis was compared to that of a primary physician, not to the final histopathology/fol- low-up–based diagnosis [2]. Teledermoscopy (TDS) is based on transmission of a dermoscopy picture. TDS is known to improve diagnostic accuracy and decrease the rate of unnecessary consultations in dermatol- ogy compared with TD alone [5-7], yet most of the published studies were performed in a secondary telemedicine setting. By contrast, the aim of this study, performed in our unit dedicated to private practice dermatologists with special extra-competence in difficult-to-diagnose skin lesions encom- passing many digital dermoscopy follow-ups, nail tumors, and pediatric lesions, was to (1) determine the final diagnostic concordance between the diagnosis made by the tele-expert and the final diagnosis and (2) evaluate the efficiency of tertiary TDS. Methods Patients We conducted an unselected consecutive cohort study between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. Referring clinicians sent TD requests on an encrypted, firewall-protected store- and-forward server of the Hospices Civils de Lyon (https:// myhclpro.sante-ra.fr/). Clinicians provided age, sex, location, personal and family medical history, and macroscopic and der- moscopic pictures to experts and questions on diagnosis and Conclusions: This study confirms that tertiary TDS improves diagnostic accuracy of pigmented skin lesions. Moreover, it shows encouraging results in unusual conditions such as ungual and pediatric skin tumors. The main limitation was the retrospective nature and the “real-life” setting of our study that could have created a selection bias toward inclusion of the most difficult cases. ABSTRACT http://www.R-project.org https://myhclpro.sante-ra.fr/ https://myhclpro.sante-ra.fr/ Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 3 (39%) male; median age was 45 years and there were 44 (15.2%) children (aged ≤15 years). Referring Clinicians Referring clinicians were 78 (93.9%) dermatologists and 6 (7.1 %) skin cancer hyperspecialized GPs. Referring clinicians of our geographic region (Rhône Alpes Auvergne) accounted for 152 (53.9%); 2 (0.7%) requests were international. Requests Requests included a median number of 2 (range 1-6) der- moscopy pictures in a total number of 3 (range 1-24). In 32 cases (11%) we did not receive accompanying close-up or wide-angle standard pictures. These standard images were variables; and percentages and effectives for discontinuous variables. Variables were compared with chi-square or Fischer exact test when necessary. The Ethical Committee of Lyons University Hospital approved the study protocol on May 17, 2018. Results Populations Figure 1 represents the flow chart of the study. Two hundred ninety teledermoscopic requests with known final diagnosis were included on a total of 2,528 tertiary TD requests sent between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2016. One hundred seventy-seven (61%) patients were female and 113 Table 1. Definitions of Study Outcomes Study Outcome Reference Standard Index Test Final diagnostic concordance Histopathological result (excised or biopsied lesions) or follow-up (nonexcised lesions) Teledermatologist expert diagnosis Perfect final diagnostic concordance Teledermatologists and final diagnosis is identical Partial concordance Final diagnosis is included in the differential diagnosis list by the expert but not in first position Disagreement on final diagnosis Final diagnosis not suggested by the expert in his differential diagnosis list Prediagnostic concordance Teledermatologist diagnosis Referring clinician proposed diagnosis Perfect prediagnostic concordance Teledermatologists and referring clinical initial proposition for diagnosis are the identical Partial prediagnostic concordance Diagnosis given by the expert is included in the differential diagnoses list by the referring clinician but not in first position Disagreement on prediagnosis Diagnosis given by the expert is different from the initially proposed one(s) by the referring clinician Management concordance Teledermatologist management Referring clinician proposed management Perfect management concordance Teledermatologists and referring clinical initial proposition for management are identical Partial concordance on management Final management suggested by the expert is proposed by the referring clinician but not in first position Disagreement on management The final management proposed by the expert is different from the initially proposed one by the referring clinician Benign/malignant concordance Histopathological result or follow- up (nonexcised lesions) Teledermatologist expert diagnosis on benign/malignant nature Perfect final concordance on the benign/ malignant nature of the lesion Teledermatologists and final diagnosis on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion is identical Disagreement on the nature of the lesion Teledermatologists and final diagnosis on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion is different Prediagnostic benign/malignant concordance Teledermatologist diagnosis on benign/malignant nature Referring clinician proposed diagnosis on benign/malignant nature Perfect prediagnostic concordance on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion Teledermatologists and referring clinical initial proposition for the benign/ malignant nature of the lesion is identical Disagreement on prediagnosis on the nature of the lesion Teledermatologists and referring clinical initial proposition for the benign/ malignant nature of the lesion is different 4 Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 (43.2%) and by another expert in 18 (40.9 %). Onychology represented 7 (15.9%) pediatric cases. Main Diagnoses All diagnoses are reported in Table 2. The most common diagnoses for PSL were benign melanocytic lesion in 134 (67.3%) cases, ungual squamous cell carcinoma in 10 (35.7%) for NL (NP excluded), focal melanocytic activation in 10 (35.7%) cases of NP, and basal cell carcinoma for AT in 8 (22.9%) cases. Management of Skin Tumors and PSL Excision was recommended in 65/290 (22.4%) of all skin tumors and in 44/199 (21.1%) of PSL; 3-month follow-up was recommended in 50 (17.4%); nail biopsy was recom- mended in 26 (46.4%) nail cases. When recommended, biopsies and excisions were performed in all cases. Experts recommended a hyperspecialized university hospital consul- tation in 65 (22.6%) cases; they considered it unnecessary in 2 among 32 cases for whom it was requested (6.3%). Diagnostic Correlation Histopathological diagnosis was available in 167 (57.6%) cases and reasonable-delay benign follow-up in the remaining 123 (42.4%). Perfect final diagnostic concordance between teledermatologists and histopathology or follow-up was present in 258 (89%) cases. Dermoscopy pictures were of good quality in 260 (89.7%) cases. In 170 (58.6%) cases, a report on medical history of the patient was lacking. A per- sonal history of melanoma was mentioned in 25 (8.6%) cases. Family history of melanoma was reported in 14 (4.8%) cases. The most common purpose for TDS consultation was evalu- ation of PSL in 199 (68.6%) cases, followed by nail diseases in 56 (19.3%) cases, then by AT in 35 (12.1%). Referring forms reported history of an enlarging lesion in 33 (11.4%) cases, change in a preexisting lesion in 11 (3.8%) and onset of a new lesion in 56 (19.3%). The evolution time before teleconsultation was 6 to 12 months in 55 (19%) cases; only 14 (4.8%) lesions were present for less than 3 months. Diag- nosis was the principal question in 42 (14.5%) cases, then management in 183 (63.1%) and both in 48 (16.5%). In 32 (11%) cases, motivation was to obtain a university hospital appointment (e-referral). Expert Answers Experts submitted their answers in a mean time of 2.21 days (median 1 day; range 1-14 days). In 11 (3.8%) cases, no diagnosis was made by an expert. One expert answered to 177 (61%) requests and to 41 (73.2%) nail requests. Pedi- atric cases were managed by one expert with acknowledged hyperspecialization in pediatric dermatology (A.P.) in 19 Figure 1. Flow chart of the study. Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 5 Among the remaining cases, 2 were melanomas: 1 was left undiagnosed because of a poor-quality picture (and reported as such to the referring clinician and finally excised) and the other was a 0.2-mm melanoma diagnosed as an atypical found in 202 (69.7%) cases (Figure 2). Partial concordance was found in an additional 29 (10%) cases. Disagreement was found in 59 (20.3%) cases; in 51 (86.4%), a benign lesion for which management was not compromised was found. Table 2. Summary of All Teledermoscopy Final (Histopathology or Evolution) Diagnoses Lesion Type Main Diagnoses Final Diagnoses (N = 290) (100%) Final Pediatric diagnoses (n = 44) (15.2%) Pigmented skin lesions n = 199 (68.6%) n = 30 (15.1%) pediatric Benign melanocytic lesions (nevi, blue nevi, hallo nevi, congenital nevi) Melanoma Spitz tumors (Spitz nevi and malignant spitzoid tumors) Malignant epithelial tumors (BCC, Bowen disease, SCC) Benign epithelial tumors (seborrheic keratoses, lentigos) Other diagnoses • Collision tumors • Dermatofibroma • Postinflammatory pigmentation • Exogenous pigmentation • Mastocytosis 134 (67.3%) 17 (8.5%) 3 (1.5%) 7 (3.5%) 31 (15.7%) 1 (0.5%) 3 (1.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 1 (0.5%) 25 (83.3%) 2 (6.7%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%) Amelanotic tumors n = 35 (12%) n = 7 (20%) pediatric Malignant epithelial tumors (BCC, Bowen disease, SCC) Benign epithelial tumors (seborrheic keratoses, epidermoid cysts, warts) Benign melanocytic lesions Spitz tumors (Spitz nevi and malignant spitzoid tumors) Melanoma Vascular lesions (angioma, pyogenic granuloma) Other diagnoses • Dermatofibroma • Juvenile xanthogranuloma • Adnexal tumors (trichoblastoma, pilomatricoma) • Inflammatory diseases 11 (31.5%) 4 (11.4%) 4 (11.4%) 2 (5.7%) 1 (2.9%) 4 (11.4%) 3 (8.6%) 2 (5.7%) 2 (5.7%) 2 (5.7%) 1 (14.3%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.3%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.2%) Nail pathology (longitudinal NP excluded) n = 28 (9.7%) n = 1 (3.6%) pediatric Subungual SCC Epithelial benign tumors (warts, onychopapilloma) Subungual exostosis Melanoma Other diagnoses • Onychotillomania • Glomus tumor • Hamartoma • Trauma-induced nail changes • Onychomycosis • Pyogenic granuloma • Fibromyxoma • Myxoid pseudocyst 10 (35.7%) 4 (14.2%) 3 (10.7%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 2 (7.1%) 2 (7.1%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (100%) Longitudinal NP n = 28 (9.7%) n = 6 (21.4%) pediatric Focal melanocytic activation including drug-induced NP, trauma-induced NP, ethnic-type NP Acquired benign melanocytic lesions Congenital nevi of the nail unit Melanoma Other diagnoses • Subungual hemorrhage • Onychopapilloma • SCC 10 (35.7%) 7 (25%) 3 (10.7%) 4 (14.3%) 1 (3.6%) 1 (3.6%) 2 (7.1%) 1 (16.7%) 2 (33.3%) 3 (50%) BCC = basal cell carcinoma; NP = nail pigmentation; SCC = squamous cell carcinoma. 6 Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 nevus for which a 6-month follow-up was suggested, which then led to the correct diagnosis. Other misdiagnosed tumors were 5 basal cell carcinomas (in 3 cases histopathology was, however, recommended; in 1 case a 3-month follow-up was recommended; no treatment was recommended in the fifth case) and 1 squamous cell carcinoma (no response because of poor-quality picture). Prediagnostic concordance is presented in Table 3. For example, the referring clinician and expert totally agreed on the diagnosis of the histopathology-con- firmed melanoma shown in Figure 3. However, the referring clinician and expert disagreed on diagnosis and management of the lesion shown in Figure 4 but histopathology confirmed a dermatofibroma, as proposed by the expert. Benign/malignant concordance was found in 227 (78.3%) cases, discordance in 63 (21.7%) cases (Figure 5). Prediag- nostic benign/malignant concordance and management con- cordance results are presented in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Figure 2. Perfect final diagnostic concordance between teledermoscopy expert and final diagnoses (histopathology or reasonable-delay benign follow-up). Table 3. Prediagnostic Concordance Between Teledermoscopy Expert and Referring Clinician All Requests (N = 290) (100%) Nail Requests (n = 56) (19.3%) Pediatric Requests (n = 44) (15.2%) Perfect prediagnostic concordance 116 (40%) 16 (28.6%) 21 (47.7%) Partial prediagnostic concordance 44 (15.2%) 12 (21.4%) 4 (9.1%) Disagreement on prediagnosis No hypothesis from referring clinician No hypothesis from teledermoscopy expert 130 (44.8%) 76 (26.2%) 11 (3.8%) 28 (50%) 21 (37.5%) 0 19 (43.2%) 9 (20.5%) 3 (6.8%) Results in the nail and pediatric subgroups are presented in Figures 2 and 5 and Tables 3, 4, and 5. The experts’ diagnostic concordance with final diagnosis was statistically lower for AT: total disagreement on 18/35 (51.4%) when compared to 57/199 (28.6%); 6/28 (21.4%) and 7/28 (25%) for PSL, NP, and NL (P = 0.028), respectively. Discussion We report herein the first robust, final diagnosis-based, real- life concordance study in tertiary (specialists-to-experts) store-and-forward TDS. Tertiary TD is used in order to seek expert opinion/second opinion, but also to obtain an expert FTF consultation (e-re- ferral). It may also be used for resident training and continu- ous medical education of specialists [8]. TDS is a specialized Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 7 Figure 4. A 70-year-old woman presented with a pigmented atypical lesion on the leg. The referring clinician suggested excision for a possible melanoma. The diagnosis of dermatofibroma, suggested by the expert, was confirmed by histopathology.  Figure 3. A 72-year-old man presented with a pigmented atypical lesion on the abdomen for 6 months. Expert and clinicians both di- agnosed a melanoma and suggested excision of the lesion. Histology found a superficial spreading melanoma 0.35 mm thick. Figure 5. Perfect final concordance on the benign/malignant nature of the lesion between teledermoscopy expert and final diagnoses (histo- pathology or reasonable-delay benign follow-up). 8 Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 lesion is also suggested by a 45.2% prediagnostic benign/ malignant disagreement. Moreover, analysis of diagnostic disagreements between expert and referring clinician showed that the expert was correct in the majority of cases (72.7%). Our results in tertiary TDS are similar to previously published results in secondary settings (51%-94% for diagnostic accu- racy between TD and histopathology [excised lesion]) and FTF diagnosis (nonexcised lesions) when dermoscopy is per- formed [2,9-17]. Literature data combined with ours suggest an interesting improvement of diagnosis by transmission of dermoscopy pictures in cases of doubtful PSL. However, one author reported that the addition of TDS did not significantly improve diagnostic accuracy compared to transmission of standard pictures alone for malignant PSL [18] and suggested that TDS was useful only for malignant amelanotic skin tumors (aggregated accuracy, P = 0.0017; primary accuracy, P = 0.0382) [19]. This discrepancy might be explained by the tertiary setting of our study, referred cases being found difficult-to-diagnose by dermatology specialists concerned less with basal cell carcinomas and more with unusual (acral, pediatric) pigmented skin tumors. The only available report on histopathology-based ter- tiary TD, including 33 cases, was centered on inflammatory skin diseases; it also demonstrated a high (78.8%) level of concordance [20]. Van der Heijden et al showed that in 81% of cases, dermatologists would have referred the patient to a tertiary center without the help of TD [21]. Our study also approach within TD known to improve diagnostic accuracy and to decrease the rate of unnecessary consultations in dermatology compared with TD without dermoscopy [5-7], yet all published studies to date were performed in a second- ary telemedicine setting. In most published TD studies, the main methodological limitation was the absence of correlation study with final diagnosis established either on histopathology or follow-up [2]. Moreover, no secondary-setting TDS published stud- ies included follow-up information for nonexcised lesions [2]. In our study, the gold standard was histopathology in 57.6% of the cases or follow-up in 42.4%. We report a high (79.7%) diagnostic concordance between TDS experts and final diagnosis except for diagnosis of AT, for which the diagnostic discordance was significantly higher (51%) than for PSL (28.6%), NL (25%), and NP (21.4%). We also report a high (78.3%) concordance level about the diagnosis of malignant/benign nature of the lesion. Our results suggest that TDS improved diagnosis and management because of an observed high level of discordance between diagnosis proposed by the referring clinician and the expert (44.8%) and a high frequency of alternative management proposed by the expert (46.5%). Interestingly enough, analysis of our misdiagnosed cases showed only 1/23 (4.3%) undiagnosed melanoma and concerned an early case (0.2 mm) for which digital follow-up was suggested. Improvement on the diag- nosis regarding the malignant/benign nature of the referred Table 4. Management Concordance Between Teledermoscopy Expert and Referring Clinician All Requests (N = 290) (100%) Nail Requests (n = 56) (19.3%) Pediatric Requests (n = 44) (15.2%) Perfect management concordance 75 (25.9%) 19 (33.9%) 13 (29.5%) Partial concordance on management 80 (27.6%) 13 (23.2%) 13 (29.5%) Disagreement on management No management proposed by the referring clinician No management proposed by expert in teledermoscopy 135 (46.5%) 75 (25.9%) 11 (3.8%) 24 (42.9%) 15 (26.8%) 0 18 (41%) 5 (11.4%) 0 Table 5. Prediagnostic Benign/Malignant Concordance Between Teledermoscopy Expert and Referring Clinician All Requests (N = 290) (100%) Nail Requests (n = 56) (19.3%) Pediatric Requests (n = 44) (15.2%) Perfect prediagnostic concordance on benign/ malignant nature of the lesion 159 (54.8%) 26 (46.4%) 29 (65.9%) Disagreement on prediagnosis on the nature of the lesion No hypothesis from the referring clinicians No hypothesis from teledermoscopy expert 131 (45.2%) 76 (26.2%) 11 (3.8%) 30 (53.6%) 21 (37.5%) 0 15 (34.1%) 9 (20.5%) 3 (6.8%) Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 9 compared with solitary nonexpert assessment and offers additional support for the management of unusual conditions such as ungual and pediatric skin tumors with easier access to regional, national, and international expert opinion. Acknowledgments Referring Clinicians: Mme. Delphine Anuset; Mme. Sylvie Arvieu; Mme. Laure Baudoux; Mr. Antoine Claeys; Mme. Dominique Charleux; Mme. Geneviève Choquet; Mme. Claire Dubas-Coudert; Mr. Jean-Yves Forestier; Mme. Florence Hoareau; Mme. Fanny Humbert; Mme. Marion Gabillot; Mme. Céline Graveriau; Mme. Celine Langella; Mme. Anne- Laure Liegon; Mme. Noemie Litrowski; Mme. Marie-Cécile Marcilly Luaute; Mme. Laurence Barrie; Mme. Susanne Evanno-Meertz; Mr. Remi Lombard; Mme. Marion Loppin; Mme. Catherine Maisonneuve; Mme. Cristina Mangas; Mme. Aurore Meyer; Mme. Juliette Miquel; Mme. Stefana-Nico- leta Balica; Mr. Jean Paroissien; Mme. Anne Sarazin; Mme. Anne-Laure Rival-Tringali; Mme. Barbara Haettich-Pialoux; Mme. Celina Duchemin; Mme. Fabienne Pousset-Léger; Mme. Benedicte Courtois; Mme. Aline Montet; Mme. Ghis- laine De Cambourg; Mme. Françoise Wolf; Mme. Caroline Dumortier; Mme. Isabelle Mironneau; Mme. Isabelle Guil- lot Pouget; Mme. Elodie Archer; Mme. Mounia Naji; Mr. Davide Sali; Mr. Thomas Delaporte; Mme. Nancy Arpin; Mme. Sophie Brunet-Coupelon; Mme. Nathalie Gunera Saad; Mme. Fanny Locatelli; Mme. Pauline Chappuis; Mme. Aude Alquier Bouffard; Mme. Anne-Lise Vincent; Mme. Fabienne Martin; Mme. Astrid Baeke; Mme. Françoise Truchot; Mme. Elise Arbona Vidal; Mr. Yvan Ali Cherif; Dominique Segault; Mme. Mathilde Tardieu; Mme. Nadia Ruffion; Mme. Marie- Charlotte Deroo-Berger; Mme. Isabelle Mironneau; Mme. Sandy Leger; Mme. Carine Merlen-Djafri; Mme. Emman- uelle Besson; Mme. Pascale Perrin; Mme. Elodie Couderc; Mme. Nadege Thieulent; Mme. Cecile Ludmann; Mr. Cliff Rosendahl; Mme. Marie-Emilie Deschamps; Mme. Janique Gremion; Mme. Laure Cellarier; Mme. Daphné Dumon; Mr. Stephane Bosonnet; Mme. Blandine Pincemaille; Mme. Marie-Laure Batard; Mme. Valerie Doffoel-Hantz; Mme. Marie-France Bouthenet; Mme. Marie-France Brun; Mme. Christine Dissard; Mme. Claire Lonuveille; Mme. Deborah Salik; Mme. Helene Flacher; Mme. Marion Gabillot; Mme. Claire Demongeot; Mme. Karen Talour; Mr. Philipe Castets; Mme. Cécile Dolla; Mr. Marc Lopvet, Department of Medical Information, Hospices Civils de Lyon. References 1. Tensen E, van der Heijden JP, Jaspers MWM, Witkamp L. Two decades of teledermatology: current status and integration in demonstrates that, in “real life,” the delay to obtain an expert opinion is short (2.21 days, median 1 day). In our study, 65 (22.6%) cases were referred to our hospital after TDS. Although almost half of our TDS recruitment is generated outside our region, this high number is explained by the high proportion of nail conditions for which biopsy is difficult to conduct in home offices. Cheung et al also demonstrated that TD avoided FTF consultation in 68% of cases with good-quality pictures [22]. Dermoscopy picture quality was good in 89.7% of cases in our study, similar to Massone et al (88%) [14]. In another secondary-setting TDS study, the quality of transmitted pictures was relatively lower, with only 36% good and 28% fair [12] and a lower accuracy and reli- ability compared with FTF consultation ( 0.66 on diagnosis and 0.42 on management), supporting the concept that TDS is highly dependent on picture quality [12]. Our study assessed the concordance between TDS and final diagnosis in pediatric skin tumors. Consultation offers in pediatric dermatology are scarce and are by far exceeded by the demand. TD is used to facilitate access to highly spe- cialized pediatric dermatology opinion and to select cases for whom an FTF consultation is needed [23]. In the literature, diagnostic concordance between pediatricians and telederma- tologists ranges from 16.7% to 82% [23-26]. These studies concern inflammatory skin diseases and do not include dermoscopy pictures. Diagnostic concordance was reason- ably high (77.3%). Management concordance level between pediatricians and teledermatologists ranged from 25% to 44% vs 55% to 76% in adult patients. Our study concerned exclusively pediatric skin tumors, including dermoscopy pic- tures, and our results (59%) are very similar. Our study encompassed a large number (19.3%) of nail teleconsultations. We found a high diagnostic concordance between TDS expert and final diagnosis in 50 (89.3%) and a high number of diagnostic (50%) and management (42.9%) changes after TDS, suggesting a high impact on patient’s outcome. The main limitation of our work was its cohort nature and the “real-life” setting evaluating our routine telemedicine platform with no previously agreed-upon way to report on outcome. Many cases (89.5%) were excluded because of unavailable histopathology/outcome information. This could have created a selection bias toward inclusion of the most difficult cases, the referring clinicians being less willing to retrieve patient information in case of indolent conditions or unchanged diagnosis and management after TDS. Conclusions In addition to previously published reports, this study con- firms that tertiary TDS improves diagnostic accuracy of PSL 10 Research | Dermatol Pract Concept 2020;10(3):e2020071 14. Massone C, Maak D, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Soyer HP, Frühauf J. Teledermatology for skin cancer prevention: an experience on 690 Austrian patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2014;28(8):1103-1108. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12351. 15. Tan E, Yung A, Jameson M, Oakley A, Rademaker M. Successful triage of patients referred to a skin lesion clinic using teledermos- copy (IMAGE IT trial). Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(4):803-811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09673.x. 16. Warshaw EM, Gravely AA, Nelson DB. Reliability of store and forward teledermatology for skin neoplasms. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(3):426-435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jaad.2014.11.001. 17. Börve A, Dahlén Gyllencreutz J, Terstappen K, et al. Smartphone teledermoscopy referrals: a novel process for improved triage of skin cancer patients. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015;95(2):186-190. https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-1906. 18. Warshaw EM, Lederle FA, Grill JP, et al. Accuracy of teleder- matology for pigmented neoplasms. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;61(5):753-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.04.032. 19. Warshaw EM, Lederle FA, Grill JP, et al. Accuracy of teleder- matology for nonpigmented neoplasms. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60(4):579-588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2008.11.892. 20. Lozzi GP, Soyer HP, Massone C, et al. The additive value of second opinion teleconsulting in the management of patients with chal- lenging inflammatory, neoplastic skin diseases: a best practice mod- el in dermatology? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21(1):30- 34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01846.x. 21. van der Heijden JP, de Keizer NF, Witkamp L, Spuls PI. Evalua- tion of a tertiary teledermatology service between peripheral and academic dermatologists in the Netherlands. Telemed E-Health. 2014;20(4):332-337. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0197. 22. Cheung CM, Muttardi K, Chinthapalli S, Ismail F. Pilot teleder- matology service for assessing solitary skin lesions in a tertiary London Dermatology Center. J Healthc Qual. 2018;41(1):e1-e6. https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000142. 23. Naka F, Makkar H, Lu J. Teledermatology: kids are not just little people. Clin Dermatol. 2017;35(6):594-600. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2017.08.009. 24. Heffner VA, Lyon VB, Brousseau DC, Holland KE, Yen K. Store- and-forward teledermatology versus in-person visits: a compar- ison in pediatric teledermatology clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60(6):956-961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2008.11.026. 25. Paradela-De-La-Morena S, Fernandez-Torres R, Martínez-Gómez W, Fonseca-Capdevila E. Teledermatology: diagnostic reliability in 383 children. Eur J Dermatol. 2015;25(6):563-569. https://doi. org/10.1684/ejd.2015.2658. 26. Chen TS, Goldyne ME, Mathes EFD, Frieden IJ, Gilliam AE. Pediatric teledermatology: observations based on 429 consults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(1):61-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jaad.2009.05.039. national healthcare systems. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2016;5:96-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-016-0136-7. 2. Finnane A, Dallest K, Janda M, Soyer HP. Teledermatology for the diagnosis and management of skin cancer: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(3):319-327. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jamadermatol.2016.4361. 3. Warshaw EM, Hillman YJ, Greer NL, et al. Teledermatology for diagnosis and management of skin conditions: a systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(4):759-772. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.08.026. 4. Coates SJ, Kvedar J, Granstein RD. Teledermatology: from histor- ical perspective to emerging techniques of the modern era, part II: emerging technologies in teledermatology, limitations and future directions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(4):577-586. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.08.014. 5. Ferrándiz L, Ojeda-Vila T, Corrales A, et al. Impact of dermoscopy on an internet-based skin cancer triage system: interim results of a randomized study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(2):342-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.1165. 6. Moreno-Ramirez D, Ferrandiz L, Galdeano R, Camacho FM. Teledermatoscopy as a triage system for pigmented lesions: a pilot study. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2006;31(1):13-18. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2230.2005.02000.x. 7. de Giorgi V, Gori A, Savarese I, et al. Teledermoscopy in doubt- ful melanocytic lesions: is it really useful? Int J Dermatol. 2016;55(10):1119-1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.13281. 8. van der Heijden JP, Spuls PI, Voorbraak FP, et al. Tertiary teleder- matology: a systematic review. Telemed E-Health. 2010;16(1):56- 62. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2009.0020. 9. Congalton AT, Oakley AM, Rademaker M, Bramley D, Martin RCW. Successful melanoma triage by a virtual lesion clinic (teleder- matoscopy). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29(12):2423- 2428. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.13309. 10. Kroemer S, Frühauf J, Campbell TM, et al. Mobile telederma- tology for skin tumour screening: diagnostic accuracy of clinical and dermoscopic image tele-evaluation using cellular phones. Br J Dermatol. 2011 May;164(5):973-979. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2133.2011.10208.x. 11. Tan E, Oakley A, Soyer HP, et  al. Interobserver variabili- ty of teledermoscopy: an international study. Br J Dermatol. 2010;163(6):1276-1281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2133.2010.10010.x. 12. van der Heijden JP, Thijssing L, Witkamp L, Spuls PI, de Keiz- er NF. Accuracy and reliability of teledermatoscopy with images taken by general practitioners during everyday prac- tice. J Telemed Telecare. 2013;19(6):320-325. https://doi. org/10.1177/1357633X13503437. 13. Senel E, Sabancılar E, Mansuroğlu C, Demir E. A prelimi- nary study of the contribution of telemicroscopy to the di- agnosis and management of skin tumours in telederma- tology. J Telemed Telecare. 2014;20(4):178-183. https://doi. org/10.1177/1357633X14533885. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12351 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.09673.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.11.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.11.001 https://doi.org/10.2340/00015555-1906 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.04.032 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2008.11.892 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2006.01846.x https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2013.0197 https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000142 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2017.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2017.08.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2008.11.026 https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2015.2658 https://doi.org/10.1684/ejd.2015.2658 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.05.039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2009.05.039 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-016-0136-7 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4361 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4361 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.08.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2010.08.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.08.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2014.08.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2016.02.1165 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2230.2005.02000.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2230.2005.02000.x https://doi.org/10.1111/ijd.13281 https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2009.0020 https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.13309 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10208.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10208.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10010.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10010.x https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X13503437 https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X13503437 https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X14533885 https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X14533885