This is fantastic and I would do something similar if I had the same resources.
Whole genome sequencing and single cell sequencing are actually surprisingly inexpensive (compared to the cost of almost any cancer treatment) and there is a good argument that we should do this by default for any type of cancer for which there are not effective treatments.
I would encourage all patients to learn as much as possible about their own diagnosis. There may be clinical trials available in another centre that your clinician is not aware of or tumour-agnostic trials that target specific mutations that are present in a range of different cancers.
There is a good argument for allowing patients to try experimental treatments once standard treatments are exhausted. The provider liability issues could easily be solved by legislation. A bigger issue is that there will always be people who want to exploit vulnerable cancer patients by charging exorbitant amounts for plausible-sounding treatments which have no evidence base.
As an individual trying multiple experimental treatments at once is the logical approach if there is no other option. However it will not be possible to know which of these is effective and which have caused side effects so to develop more effective treatments we do need structured and carefully controlled clinical trials. Unfortunately there is a huge regulatory burden for any kind of clinical trial at present and this should be massively streamlined for cancer patients where even if the treatments cause harm the alternative is death.
I think we are going to see more and more people in diverse fields developing applications that meet the requirements of a small niche that may not have been economically viable previously.
Not tried but my guess is ChatGPT will be quite accurate but get a small proportion wrong. The challenge with skin cancer is that we cannot afford to miss even 1:10,000 cases
Thanks - I'm glad you found it useful! I have been meaning to make it for many years but could never justify the time involved until AI made it possible.
Yes a doctor would get a history which will help, however I get a high score on these images and another skin cancer doctor that commented also got a high score so in most cases the diagnosis can be made accurately on the image alone.
There are lots of apps that do this. It's (relatively) easy to get AI to perform at the same level of a dermatologist but liability/risk management/regulation is much harder to solve
Thanks for your comment - the purpose of this app is patient education rather than diagnosis but I will definitely have a look at the relevant stats in more detail!
It is randomized so probably just bad luck! FWIW I get a high score and another skin cancer doctor who commented also gets a high score so it is possible to make the diagnosis in most cases on the basis of these images.
Thanks for your kind words with regards to the app and well done for getting such a high score!. I agree that BCC is often subtle. My practice is also largely focused on skin cancer. I would say that the majority of melanomas (and SCCs) that I diagnose would be obvious to a patient that underwent a short period of focused training and checked their skin regularly. A possible explanation for the difference in our experience is that the incidence of skin cancer (and also atypical but benign moles) a lot higher in Australia than in the UK.
Whole genome sequencing and single cell sequencing are actually surprisingly inexpensive (compared to the cost of almost any cancer treatment) and there is a good argument that we should do this by default for any type of cancer for which there are not effective treatments.
I would encourage all patients to learn as much as possible about their own diagnosis. There may be clinical trials available in another centre that your clinician is not aware of or tumour-agnostic trials that target specific mutations that are present in a range of different cancers.
There is a good argument for allowing patients to try experimental treatments once standard treatments are exhausted. The provider liability issues could easily be solved by legislation. A bigger issue is that there will always be people who want to exploit vulnerable cancer patients by charging exorbitant amounts for plausible-sounding treatments which have no evidence base.
As an individual trying multiple experimental treatments at once is the logical approach if there is no other option. However it will not be possible to know which of these is effective and which have caused side effects so to develop more effective treatments we do need structured and carefully controlled clinical trials. Unfortunately there is a huge regulatory burden for any kind of clinical trial at present and this should be massively streamlined for cancer patients where even if the treatments cause harm the alternative is death.