OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dermoscopic features and patterns of dermatofibromas using conventional and polarized light dermoscopy. DESIGN: Dermatofibromas were imaged using conventional nonpolarized contact dermoscopy (NPD), polarized contact dermoscopy (PCD), and polarized noncontact dermoscopy, followed by evaluation and comparison of dermoscopic features of the lesions. SETTING: Dermatology clinic specializing in pigmented lesions. Patients Fifty patients with dermatofibromas. RESULTS: The most common features of dermatofibromas observed with NPD and PCD were central white scarlike patches (37 [74%] and 42 [84%], respectively), brown globulelike structures (21 [42%] and 22 [44%]), vascular structures (24 [48%] and 22 [44%]), and a peripheral fine pigmented network (36 [72%] for both). A newly described feature observed with PCD was a central white patch characterized by shiny white streaks. With polarized noncontact dermoscopy, the most characteristic feature was a central pink hue or "vascular blush" (44 [88%]) and visibility of blood vessels (41 [82%]). The most common pattern identified with NPD and PCD was the combination of a peripheral pigmented network and a central white patch in 28 (56%) and 31 (62%) of lesions, respectively. With polarized noncontact dermoscopy, the most common pattern was a central pink hue with a peripheral pigmented network (23 [46%]). There was good to excellent agreement when comparing NPD with PCD images, but there was a variable level of agreement when polarized noncontact dermoscopy images were compared with NPD and PCD images. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and polarized light dermoscopy are not equivalent but may be complementary. This study highlights some salient differences. We were able to identify new dermoscopic features and patterns not previously described with conventional dermoscopy. These new criteria can aid in the diagnosis of dermatofibroma.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dermoscopic features and patterns of dermatofibromas using conventional and polarized light dermoscopy. DESIGN:Dermatofibromas were imaged using conventional nonpolarized contact dermoscopy (NPD), polarized contact dermoscopy (PCD), and polarized noncontact dermoscopy, followed by evaluation and comparison of dermoscopic features of the lesions. SETTING: Dermatology clinic specializing in pigmented lesions. Patients Fifty patients with dermatofibromas. RESULTS: The most common features of dermatofibromas observed with NPD and PCD were central white scarlike patches (37 [74%] and 42 [84%], respectively), brown globulelike structures (21 [42%] and 22 [44%]), vascular structures (24 [48%] and 22 [44%]), and a peripheral fine pigmented network (36 [72%] for both). A newly described feature observed with PCD was a central white patch characterized by shiny white streaks. With polarized noncontact dermoscopy, the most characteristic feature was a central pink hue or "vascular blush" (44 [88%]) and visibility of blood vessels (41 [82%]). The most common pattern identified with NPD and PCD was the combination of a peripheral pigmented network and a central white patch in 28 (56%) and 31 (62%) of lesions, respectively. With polarized noncontact dermoscopy, the most common pattern was a central pink hue with a peripheral pigmented network (23 [46%]). There was good to excellent agreement when comparing NPD with PCD images, but there was a variable level of agreement when polarized noncontact dermoscopy images were compared with NPD and PCD images. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and polarized light dermoscopy are not equivalent but may be complementary. This study highlights some salient differences. We were able to identify new dermoscopic features and patterns not previously described with conventional dermoscopy. These new criteria can aid in the diagnosis of dermatofibroma.
Authors: Harald Kittler; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Giuseppe Argenziano; Cristina Carrera; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof; Josep Malvehy; Scott Menzies; Susana Puig; Harold Rabinovitz; Wilhelm Stolz; Toshiaki Saida; H Peter Soyer; Eliot Siegel; William V Stoecker; Alon Scope; Masaru Tanaka; Luc Thomas; Philipp Tschandl; Iris Zalaudek; Allan Halpern Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: A Blum; J Kreusch; W Stolz; H Haenssle; R Braun; R Hofmann-Wellenhof; P Tschandl; I Zalaudek; H Kittler Journal: Hautarzt Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 0.751
Authors: Cristián Navarrete-Dechent; Shirin Bajaj; Michael A Marchetti; Harold Rabinovitz; Stephen W Dusza; Ashfaq A Marghoob Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Shirin Bajaj; Michael A Marchetti; Cristian Navarrete-Dechent; Stephen W Dusza; Kivanc Kose; Ashfaq A Marghoob Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 10.282