The current subjective histopathological assessment of cutaneous melanoma is challenging. The application of image analysis algorithms to histological images may facilitate improvements in workflow and prognostication. To date, several individual algorithms applied to melanoma histological images have been reported with variations in approach and reported accuracies. Histological digital images can be created using a camera mounted on a light microscope, or through whole slide image (WSI) generation using a whole slide scanner. Before any such tool could be integrated into clinical workflow, the accuracy of the technology should be carefully evaluated and summarised. Therefore, the objective of this review was to evaluate the accuracy of existing image analysis algorithms applied to digital histological images of cutaneous melanoma. Database searching of PubMed and Embase from inception to 11th March 2022 was conducted alongside citation checking and examining reports from organisations. All studies reporting accuracy of any image analysis applied to histological images of cutaneous melanoma, were included. The reference standard was any histological assessment of haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides and/or immunohistochemical staining. Citations were independently deduplicated and screened by two review authors and disagreements were resolved through discussion. The data was extracted concerning study demographics; type of image analysis; type of reference standard; conditions included and test statistics to construct 2 × 2 tables. Data was extracted in accordance with our protocol and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA) Statement. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Assessment of methodological quality was conducted using a tailored version of the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. The primary outcome was the pooled sensitivity and specificity of image analysis applied to cutaneous melanoma histological images. Sixteen studies were included in the systematic review, representing 4,888 specimens. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The mean sensitivity and specificity of automated image analysis algorithms applied to melanoma histological images was 90% (CI 82%, 95%) and 92% (CI 79%, 97%), respectively. Based on limited and heterogeneous data, image analysis appears to offer high accuracy when applied to histological images of cutaneous melanoma. However, given the early exploratory nature of these studies, further development work is necessary to improve their performance.

Understanding the biological factors that are characteristic of metastasis in melanoma remains a key approach to improving treatment. In this study, we seek to identify a gene signature of metastatic melanoma. We configured a new network-based computational pipeline, combined with a machine learning method, to mine publicly available transcriptomic data from melanoma patient samples. Our method is unbiased and scans a genome-wide protein-protein interaction network using a novel formulation for network scoring. Using this, we identify the most influential, differentially expressed nodes in metastatic as compared to primary melanoma. We evaluated the shortlisted genes by a machine learning method to rank them by their discriminatory capacities. From this, we identified a panel of 6 genes, ALDH1A1, HSP90AB1, KIT, KRT16, SPRR3 and TMEM45B whose expression values discriminated metastatic from primary melanoma (87% classification accuracy). In an independent transcriptomic data set derived from 703 primary melanomas, we showed that all six genes were significant in predicting melanoma specific survival (MSS) in a univariate analysis, which was also consistent with AJCC staging. Further, 3 of these genes, HSP90AB1, SPRR3 and KRT16 remained significant predictors of MSS in a joint analysis (HR = 2.3, P = 0.03) although, HSP90AB1 (HR = 1.9, P = 2 × 10-4) alone remained predictive after adjusting for clinical predictors.