Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 1 Challenges for New Adopters in Pre-Surgical Margin Assessment by Handheld Reflectance Confocal Microscope of Basal Cell Carcinoma; A Prospective Single-center Study Nina Anika Richarz1,2,3, Aram Boada 1,2,3, Ane Jaka1,2,3, Julio Bassas1,2,3, Carlos Ferrándiz1,2,3, José Manuel Carrascosa1,2,3, Oriol Yélamos 4,5 1 Dermatology Department, University Hospital Germans Trial i Pujol, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Spain. 2 Institut d’investigació Germans Trias Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. 3 Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 4 Dermatology Department, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5 Dermatology Department, Centro Médico Teknon - Quirónsalud, Barcelona, Spain. Key words: reflectance confocal microscopy, basal cell carcinoma, micrographic Mohs surgery, margin control Citation: Richarz NA, Boada A, Jaka A, et al. Challenges for New Adopters in Pre-Surgical Margin Assessment by Handheld Reflectance Confocal Microscope of Basal Cell Carcinoma; A Prospective Single-center Study. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1204a162 Accepted: February 9, 2022; Published: October 2022 Copyright: ©2022 Richarz et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Funding: None. Competing interests: None. Authorship: All authors have contributed significantly to this publication. Introduction: In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a useful tool for assessing pre- surgical skin tumor margins when performed by a skilled, experienced user. The technique, however, poses significant challenges to novice users, particularly when a handheld RCM (HRCM) device is used. Objectives: To evaluate the performance of an HRCM device operated by a novice user to delineate basal cell carcinoma (BCC) margins before Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). Methods: Prospective study of 17 consecutive patients with a BCC in a high-risk facial area (the H zone) in whom tumor margins were assessed by HRCM and dermoscopy before MMS. Predicted surgical defect areas (cm2) were calculated using standardized photographic digital documentation and com- pared to final defect areas after staged excision. Results: No significant differences were observed between median HRCM-predicted and observed surgical defect areas (2.95 cm2 [range: 0.83–17.52] versus 2.52 cm2 [range 0.71–14.42]; P = 0.586). Dermoscopy, by contrast, produced significantly underestimated values (median area of 1.34 cm2 ABSTRACT 2 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 Corresponding author: Nina A. Richarz, MD, Department of Dermatology University Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol. Address: Carretera de Canyet s/n, 08916 Badalona, Barcelona, Spain. Phone: +34 934651200, E-mail: richarznina@gmail.com Introduction Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common skin can- cer and its incidence is rising worldwide due to chronic UV exposure and aging [1]. While the vast majority of BCCs at sites such as the trunk and extremities can be removed by simple excision or local destructive therapies, tumors located in high-risk areas such as the H zone (central area of the face, around the eyes, nose, lips, and ears) are at greater risk of destructive local spread and recurrence. Effective surgical treatment is essential for guaranteeing tumor-free margins and maximal functional and cosmetic outcomes in BCCs that are clinically ill defined and those in high-risk areas, with an aggressive histologic subtype (micronodular, mor- pheaform, basosquamous, infiltrative), or a history of in- complete excision. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) with rapid intraop- erative histologic confirmation of full tumor margins offers the highest success rates in the excision of facial BCCs [2]. MMS, however, requires advanced surgical and histopatho- logic skills and support from histotechnicians with expe- rience in this procedure. There may also be financial and resource-related obstacles. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) might facilitate BCC margin mapping prior to MMS as it can be used to delineate lateral tumor margins that can- not be determined clinically or by dermoscopy [3,4]. Studies of the use of RCM in this setting, however, have involved users with more than 5-years experience in image navigation and interpretation [3,5-9]. In addition, most of the lesions investigated were located on flat, even surfaces on the face or trunk, where natural skin folds and bony prominences, such as those found in the H zone, do not interfere with nav- igation. With the recent approval of new Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for RCM imaging and evaluation in the United States and the advent of lower-cost RCM de- vices, the number of users is expected to increase [10,11]. Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the performance of a handheld RCM (HRCM) device operated by a user with 1-year experience in this technique for lateral margin assessment in BCCs in high-risk locations in a real-life clinical setting. Methods We prospectively included consecutive patients with non-pigmented, ill-defined, biopsy-proven BCCs located in high-risk areas of the face treated with MMS at our der- matology department between August 2020 and September 2021. The study was approved by the hospital ethics com- mittee, and informed written consent was obtained from all participants prior to enrolment. The study was conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. The target lesions were imaged using the Vivascope 3000 HRCM device (MAVIG/Caliber ID), which has a horizon- tal resolution of ~1 μm, optical sectioning of ~3 μm, and a field of view of 0.75 × 0.75 mm. The images were captured in vivo before surgery by an investigator (NR) with 1-year experience who had attended an RCM course and received 2 months practical training at a reference unit. The clinical margins were first determined by dermos- copy and marked on the skin using a silver paint marker (Edding 780 creative 0.8 mm, Edding International. These markings facilitated RCM navigation and margin calculation since silver ink can be visualized by RCM [6]. The margins were then determined using HRCM and the original silver markings readjusted to the distance of one field of view (0.75 x 0.75) between the last inside tumor island to the internal side of the silverpen delineation. Using a method previously described by a member of our team (OY) [12], we produced standardized photographic documentation containing digi- tal images of the lesions before and after dermoscopy, before and after RCM, and during and after MMS. These images were then calibrated in ImageJ (NIH, available from http:// imagej.nih.gov/ij/) using anthropometric measurements and a surgical ruler placed in the image field. The same soft- ware was used to calculate surgical defect areas predicted by dermoscopy and HRCM. A 3-mm margin was added to [0.41-4.64] versus 2.52 cm2 [range 0.71-14.42]; P < 0.001). Confounders leading to poor agreement between predicted and observed areas were previous treatment (N = 5), a purely infiltrative subtype (N = 1), and abundant sebaceous hyperplasia (N = 1). Conclusions: Even in the hands of a novice user, HRCM is more accurate than dermoscopy for delin- eating lateral BCCs margins in high-risk areas and performs well at predicting final surgical defects. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 3 the predicted values as the MMS protocol at our hospital requires histologic clearance of at least 3 mm. Images of the final surgical defect were obtained before surgical recon- struction and the area was re-measured to compare it with the dermoscopy- and HRCM-predicted areas. The surgeons who performed MMS (AJ, JB, GC) were blinded to the dermoscopy and HRCM calculations, and, as per protocol, extended the dermoscopic margin by 3 mm during the first excision stage. The excised specimen was fro- zen and sectioned for microscopic examination of lateral and deep margins and, where necessary, the process was repeated until achievement of full histologic clearance. Statistical Analysis Descriptive statistics were used to describe the characteristics of the cohort, lesion size, and predicted and observed surgi- cal defect areas. Normal distribution was checked using the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test. Since most of the variables were non-normally distributed, non-parametric tests were used. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the final surgical defect area and the areas predicted by dermoscopy and HRCM. All analyses were performed in SPSS version 22 (IBM corporation). Results Seventeen consecutive patients (9 men and 8 women) agreed to participate in the study and underwent complete BCC ex- cision by MMS (Table 1). The median age at the time of HRCM examination was 70 years (range: 46–86 years). Thirteen tumors were located on the nose, 2 on the temple, and 1 each on the ear and inner canthus of the eye (Figure 1). Four patients had previously undergone conventional sur- gery at the same site and had had positive margins or ex- perienced recurrence. Another 4 patients had been treated with cryotherapy, curettage, or topical imiquimod and 2 had undergone radiotherapy. Salvage MMS was performed in one patient in whom oral vismodegib had been discontin- ued after 4 months due to adverse effects. Fourteen patients (82.3%) had an infiltrative BCC component on histology, 2 had a nodular/superficial subtype, and 1 had a superficial, undetermined subtype (Table 1). A median of 2 MMS stages (range: 1–4) were needed to achieve tumor-free margins after margin delineation with der- moscopy (Table 1). Dermoscopy underestimated the final sur- gical defect area by a median of 1.18 cm2 (1.34 cm2 [range: 0.41–4.64] versus 2.52 cm2 [range: 0.71–14.42]; P < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the HRCM-pre- dicted area and the final area (2.95 cm2 [range: 0.83–17.52] versus 2.52 cm2 [range: 0.71–14.42]; P =  0.586). HRCM, however, overestimated defect size in three cases and underesti- mated it in four (Figure 2). Of the 3 patients with overestimated defect areas, 1 had been previously treated by radiotherapy (patient #12), another had a purely infiltrative component (patient #14), and another had prominent sebaceous hyper- plasia mistaken for tumor islands by the confocalist (patient #3). Of the 4 patients with underestimated defect areas, 1 had been treated with conventional surgery (patient #11), 1 with curettage (patient #16), 1 with radiotherapy (patient #9), and 1 with imiquimod (patient #5). These treatments had resulted in scarring at different levels of the epidermis and/or dermis. Conclusions The main limitation of this study is its small sample size (17 consecutive patients), which was partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as fewer operations were performed and fewer patients agreed to participate in the study due to fear of infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coro- navirus 2. Another notable limitation is the decreased resolu- tion offered by RCM at depths of greater than 200-250 μm. Deep margin assessment with this technique is thus subopti- mal, particularly for purely infiltrative tumors, deep tumors, and tumors located under scar tissue [13]. Finally, since this was a real-life bedside study involving live imaging, we were unable to assess the difficulty of each case and compare the performance of the novice confocalist with that of an expert. Another limitation is that there is yet no follow-up of the cases available. The use of in vivo RCM imaging for the bedside diagnosis and histologic subtyping of BCC and other skin cancers has gained popularity in the past decade [13-15]. Its usefulness in the assessment of lateral margins has been demonstrated in nodular and superficial BCCs located on flat surfaces such as the cheek, forehead, and trunk [3,5,6]. Candidates for MMS, however, usually have lesions in high-risk areas of the face, where performance of wide-probe RCM is complicated by skin elasticity and the presence of concave and convex surfaces. HRCM, by contrast, offers advantages in uneven locations, as it allows for free-form navigation. It also pres- ents challenges, however, especially for new users working in real-life settings, as unlike wide-probe RCM, it does not have mosaicking capabilities. Image acquisition is therefore heavily user dependent. This prospective study analyzed the use of HRCM in the assessment of BCC margins prior to MMS in clinical prac- tice at a single institution. Our results suggest that, even in the hands of novice operators and in challenging locations such as the nose, HRCM outperforms dermoscopy. In more complex cases, however, such as tumors previously treated with radiotherapy, surgery, or imiquimod, it may produce less accurate results due to the presence of scar tissue im- peding visualization of tumor structures. Other difficulties include recognition of infiltrative BCC components or BCC 4 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 Ta b le 1 . S um m ar y of d em og ra ph ic a nd B C C c ha ra ct er is ti cs a nd c om pa ri so n of s ur gi ca l d ef ec t ar ea s pr ed ic te d by H R C M a nd d er m os co py a nd o bs er ve d af te r M M S. C as e Se x A g e (y ) B C C lo ca ti o n B C C s u b ty p e Tr ea tm en t b ef o re R C M D er m o sc o p y- p re d ic te d su rg ic al d ef ec t ar ea ( cm 2 ) H R C M -p re d ic te d su rg ic al d ef ec t ar ea (c m 2 ) Fi n al su rg ic al d ef ec t ar ea (c m 2 ) N o . o f M M S st ag es 1 M 83 N as al t ip N od ul ar /i nfi lt ra ti ve Su rg er y in 2 01 2, vi sm od eg ib f or 4 m on th s in 2 01 7 4. 72 7 4. 68 7 4. 36 4 1 2 M 42 N as al a la N od ul ar /a de no id / m ic ro no du la r Su rg er y w it h po si ti ve m ar gi ns in 2 01 9 1. 08 2 0. 80 3 0. 81 8 2 3 M 86 N os e Su pe rfi ci al m ul ti fo ca l/ no du la r/ in fil tr at iv e 2. 11 4 4. 14 8 2 1 4 M 76 N os e Su pe rfi ci al /n od ul ar 2. 19 1 3. 32 6 3. 46 8 3 5 M 68 T ip /d or su m o f no se Su pe rfi ci al m ul ti fo ca l/ no du la r Im iq ui m od 3. 61 4 2. 71 8 3. 96 8 2 6 F 68 N as al a la In fil tr at iv e/ m ic ro no du la r 2. 72 5 2. 94 7 2. 87 4 1 7 M 84 E ar N od ul ar /in fil tr at iv e C ry ot he ra py 2. 14 9 2. 24 9 2. 12 5 2 8 F 71 N os e In fil tr at iv e 1. 72 1. 87 1. 79 4 1 9 M 70 N as al a la In fil tr at iv e/ m ic ro no du la r R ad io th er ap y 2. 61 2 3. 26 1 7. 64 7 4 10 F 46 Te m pl e In fil tr at iv e/ su pe rfi ci al Su rg er y in 2 01 5 cr yo th er ap y, im iq ui m od 6. 35 1 8. 42 6 8. 42 3 2 11 M 82 N os e In fil tr at iv e/ su pe rfi ci al / no du la r C ur et ta ge + el ec tr o- co ag ul at io n 6. 55 9 5. 37 9 7. 12 4 1 12 F 52 N as al t ip Su pe rfi ci al /u nd efi ne d R ad io th er ap y 0. 97 7 6. 83 0. 71 1 13 F 68 N as al a la M ic ro no du la r 2. 50 9 2. 50 5 2. 35 7 3 14 F 73 Te m pl e M ic ro no du la r/ in fil tr at iv e 5. 13 17 .5 19 14 .4 16 4 15 F 78 N as al t ip In fil tr at iv e/ m ic ro no du la r 1. 04 4 1. 06 1. 10 5 3 16 M 60 In ne r ca nt hu s of e ye In fil tr at iv e Su rg er y in 2 02 0 1. 75 3 1. 83 2 2. 52 1 17 F 53 N as al a la In fil tr at iv e 1. 10 6 1. 11 5 1. 03 1 B C C  =  b as al c el l c ar ci no m a; F  =  f em al e; H R C M  =  h an dh el d re fl ec ta nc e co nf oc al m ic ro sc op y; M  =  m al e; M M S  =  m ic ro gr ap hi c M oh s su rg er y. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 5 mimickers, such as sebaceous hyperplasia, hair follicles, and eccrine glands (Table 2). Novice users need to be familiar with normal skin structures and aware of the limitations of HCRM. We believe that image-reading challenges can be overcome by ensuring that training programs, in addi- tion to focusing on pathologic characteristics of tumors, include content on normal skin structures, mimickers, and RCM limitations. This knowledge should shorten the learn- ing curve. Rapid feedback from experienced confocalists via image-sharing platforms in cases of doubt could also be very valuable. Scouting biopsies are useful in complex cases as they can help differentiate tumors from benign structures or scar tissue, especially when working at depths of greater than 200-250 µm. A summary of the above challenges and proposed solutions is given in Table 2. Although HRCM has cellular resolution, it presents some technical challenges. Navigation in the horizontal plane, for example, can be problematic due to loss of reference points and the impossibility of building an overall mosaic of the lesion. Visualization thus is restricted to a small field of vi- sion (0.75 × 0.75 mm or 1 × 1 mm depending on the gener- ation of microscope). Patient breathing and movement can Figure 1. Locations of basal cell carcinomas (red circles) included in the study. High-risk areas are shown in orange. Figure 2. Representative cases of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) showing good agreement between surgical defect areas predicted by handheld reflectance confocal microscopy (HRCM) and the defect areas after Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) (A-D), overestimated defect areas (E-H), and underestimated defect areas (I-L). (A) Similarity between the HRCM-predicted surgical defect area (blue line) and the final area (B) in a BCC with evident tumor islands seen by RCM (C) and a nodular subtype identified in the intraoperative frozen section (D). (E) HRCM-predicted surgical defect area in a BCC previously treated with radiotherapy that was significantly larger than the final defect area after MMS (F). HRCM images of radiation-induced dermal fibrosis (G) were mistaken for collagen surrounding deep tumor islands, but these were ruled out by histology (H). The HRCM–predicted surgical defect area in (I) was significantly smaller than the final area (J) in a superficial, infiltrative BCC visible by HRCM (K) and histology (L). 6 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 well in the presurgical assessment of BCC margins. We have also offered some suggestions on how performance can be further improved. RCM users often receive limited training in image acquisition and interpretation. They typically learn by experience and feedback (based on pathology reports, for example). While this also has positive effects, the learning curve could be shortened by designing certificate training courses and mentoring programs, establishing image-sharing platforms for consultations between novice and experienced users, and integrating novel technical advances, such as mul- timodal imaging and artificial intelligence. Nevertheless, our findings show that, even in difficult conditions, HCRM op- erated by a single, novice user, performed well in the delin- eation of BCC margins and provided very useful data for application in everyday clinical practice. References 1. Lomas A, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath-Hextall F. A systematic review of worldwide incidence of nonmelanoma skin cancer. Br J Derma- tol. 2012;166(5):1069–1080. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012. 10830.x. PMID: 22251204. 2. Van Loo E, Mosterd K, Krekels GAM, et al. Surgical excision versus Mohs’ micrographic surgery for basal cell carcinoma of the face: A randomised clinical trial with 10 year follow-up. Eur J Cancer. also result in abrupt motion changes that can distort im- ages. Distortion can also occur when navigating skin folds or bony prominences where it is impossible to establish a flat contact (Table 2). Newer multimodal systems such as combined RCM and optical coherence tomography (OCT) and line-field confocal OCT allow for deeper tissue imaging and improved accuracy in the delineation of lateral and deep tumor margins [10,17]. The problem of reference point loss could be overcome by using in vivo wide-field imaging to guide the horizontally moving device over the skin surface (Table 2) [18]. HRCM video-mosaicking can also be used to create static images from dynamic videos, enabling improved navigation and interpretation and facilitating comparisons between confocalists [8,12,19]. A subsequent image process- ing step is necessary, however, as in vivo video-mosaicking is not currently available in native HRCM software. Other op- tions for more precise imaging over uneven surfaces include the use of robotics or HRCM devices with a smaller optical lens for improved skin contact. Although the number of RCM users is growing world- wide and will continue to grow following the recent approval of RCM CPT codes in the United States, expert users are still limited in number. We have shown that an HRCM device op- erated by a novice user in real-life clinical practice performs Table 2. Basal cell carcinoma margin delineation by HRCM: limitations, challenges for new users, and proposed solutions. Image-reading challenges/limitations Proposed solutions Infiltrative subtypes (no clear tumor islands or clefting but dark silhouettes that appear as imprints embedded in bright collagen) Training in image reading Scouting biopsies Combined use of OCT Platforms for consulting with RCM experts Limited penetration depth for delineating deep margins Combined use of OCT to explore vertical planes Prominent sebaceous hyperplasia, hair follicles, and eccrine glands that can be mistaken for tumor islands in facial BCC Training in image reading Scouting biopsies Platforms for consulting with RCM experts Tissue distortion due to previous biopsies and treatments Training in image reading Scouting biopsies Technical challenges associated with horizontal plane navigation Proposed solutions Loss of reference points due to small field of vision (0.75 × 0.75 mm or 1 × 1 mm) and lack of automated mosaicking capabilities Integration of videomosaicking algorithm into native HRCM software Use of in vivo wide-field imaging to guide HRCM navigation Use of a robotic arm Image distortion due to patient breathing and movement Use of a a robotic arm Artificial intelligence image modeling to restore image aberrations Loss of direct contact with HRCM device over natural skin folds and bony prominences Smaller-diameter HRCM lens to facilitate direct contact with the skin Use of a robotic arm FOV = field of view; HRCM = handheld reflectance confocal microscopy; OCT = optical coherence tomography; RCM = reflectance confocal microscopy. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 7 contrast enhancer. Dermatologic Surg. 2003;29(8):839–846. DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4725.2003.29219.x. PMID: 12859385. 10. Rajadhyaksha M, Marghoob A, Rossi A, Halpern AC NK. Reflectance Confocal Microscopy of skin in vivo: From bench to bedside. Lasers Surg Med. 2017;49(1):7–19. DOI: 10.1002/ lsm.22600. PMID: 27785781. PMCID: PMC5575825. 11. Freeman EE, Semeere A, Osman H, et al. Smartphone confocal microscopy for imaging cellular structures in human skin in vivo. Biomed Opt Express. 2018;9(4):1906-1915. DOI: 10.1364/ BOE.9.001906. PMID: 29675328. PMCID: PMC5905933. 12. Yélamos O, Cordova M, Blank N, et al. Margin mapping of Lentigo maligna and Lentigo maligna melanoma using handheld reflectance confocal microscopy with radial videomosaicking: a prospective concordance study. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(12):1278–1284. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.3114. PMID: 29049429. PMCID: PMC5730495. 13. Longo C, Borsari S, Pampena R, et al. Basal cell carcinoma: the utility of in vivo and ex vivo confocal microscopy. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2018;32(12):2090–2096. DOI: 10.1111/ jdv.14984. PMID: 29633358. 14. Nori S, Rius-Díaz F, Cuevas J, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of reflectance-mode confocal microscopy for in vivo diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma: A multicenter study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51(6):923–930. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.06.028. PMID: 15583584. 15. Longo C, Lallas A, Kyrgidis A, et al. Classifying distinct basal cell carcinoma subtype by means of dermatoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71(4):716-724. e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2014.04.067. PMID: 24928707. 16. Sahu A, Yélamos O, Iftimia N, et al. Evaluation of a Combined Reflectance Confocal Microscopy-Optical Coherence Tomogra- phy Device for Detection and Depth Assessment of Basal Cell Carcinoma. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(10):1175–1183. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.2446. PMID: 30140851. PMCID: PMC6179925. 2014;50(17):3011–3020. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2014.08.018. PMID: 25262378. 3. Pan ZY, Lin JR, Cheng TT, Wu JQ, Wu WY. In vivo reflectance con- focal microscopy of basal cell carcinoma: Feasibility of preoperative mapping of cancer margins. Dermatologic Surg. 2012;38(12): 1945– 1950. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.2012.02587.x. PMID: 23039159. PMCID: PMC3546396. 4. Iftimia N, Yélamos O, Chen C-SJ, et al. Handheld optical coherence tomography–reflectance confocal microscopy probe for detection of basal cell carcinoma and delineation of margins. J Biomed Opt. 2017;22(7):076006. DOI: 10.1117/1.JBO.22.7.076006. PMID: 28697233. PMCID: PMC5995139. 5. Venturini M, Gualdi G, Zanca A, Lorenzi L, Pellacani G, Calzavara-Pinton PG. A new approach for presurgical margin assessment by reflectance confocal microscopy of basal cell car- cinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(2):380–385. DOI: 10.1111/ bjd.14244. PMID: 26498991. 6. Aleissa S, Navarrete-Dechent C, Banzhaf CA, et al. Using a me- tallic ink pen to assist in the demarcation of skin lesions un- der reflectance confocal microscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81(6):e173–e174. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2019.04.062. PMID: 31078611. 7. Gualdi G, Venturini M, Zanca A, Calzavara-Pinton PG, Pellacani G. Pre-surgical basal cell carcinoma margin definition: The SMART approach. J Eur Acad Dermatology Ve- nereol. 2016;30(3):474–476. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.12858. PMID: 25413728. 8. Flores E, Yélamos O, Cordova M, et al. Peri-operative delinea- tion of non-melanoma skin cancer margins in vivo with hand- held reflectance confocal microscopy and video-mosaicking. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2019;33(6):1084–1091. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15491. PMID: 30811707. PMCID: PMC6534461. 9. Tannous Z, Torres A, González S. In vivo real-time confocal reflectance microscopy: A noninvasive guide for Mohs micro- graphic surgery facilitated by aluminum chloride, an excellent 8 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2022;12(4):e2022162 17. Suppa M, Fontaine M, Dejonckheere G, et al. Line-field confocal optical coherence tomography of basal cell carcinoma: a descrip- tive study. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2021;35(5): 1099- 1110. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.17078. PMID: 33398911. 18. Dickensheets DL, Kreitinger S, Peterson G, Heger M, Rajad- hyaksha M. Wide-field imaging combined with confocal micros- copy using a miniature f/5camera integrated within a high NA objective lens. Opt Lett. 2017;42(7):1241–1244. DOI: 10.1364/ OL.42.001241. PMID: 28362739. PMCID: PMC5597432. 19. Kose K, Gou M, Yélamos O, et al. Automated video-mosaicking approach for confocal microscopic imaging in vivo: An approach to address challenges in imaging living tissue and extend field of view. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):10759. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017- 11072-9. PMID: 28883434. PMCID: PMC5589933.