Melanoma detection device receives FDA pre-market approval

Study finds correlation between happiness and longer life
December 7, 2011
Doctors warn against mailing chickenpox items
December 8, 2011
Study finds correlation between happiness and longer life
December 7, 2011
Doctors warn against mailing chickenpox items
December 8, 2011
Show all

Melanoma detection device receives FDA pre-market approval

The AP reports, “Dermatologists will soon get some high-tech help deciding which suspicious-looking moles should be removed and checked for melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.” Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “approved a first-of-its-kind device, called MelaFind, that makes detailed, digital images of skin growths and uses a computer to analyze them for signs of cancer, offering a sort of second opinion to doctors. The device is approved only for dermatologists.”
MedPage Today reports that the “computer-assisted melanoma diagnostic tool … has received FDA pre-market approval (PMA) for use on atypical cutaneous pigmented lesions.”
Specifically, “the device is indicated only for use on lesions that meet a number of specific criteria, including:

  • accessibility by MelaFind tool;
  • diameter of 2 to 22 mm;
  • sufficient pigmentation;
  • no scarring or fibrosis;
  • non-ulcerous and nonbleeding;
  • not on acral, palmar, plantar, mucosal, or subungual areas; [and]
  • located >1 cm from eyes.”

And, “according to the agreed-upon labeling, ‘MelaFind is designed to be used when a dermatologist chooses to obtain additional information for a decision to biopsy'” and “should NOT be used to confirm a clinical diagnosis of melanoma.”
The device “includes a handheld scanner and a computer program that analyzes images of skin lesions.
In a clinical trial, the device missed only 2% of biopsy-proven melanomas,” WebMD reports.
“However, the device had a high false-positive rate. About 90% of the time, lesions identified as suspicious by the MelaFind device turned out not to be melanoma. But in the same clinical trial, a panel of dermatologists who did not use the device had an even higher false-positive rate.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.