Caroline C Kim1, Susan M Swetter2, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski3, James M Grichnik4, Douglas Grossman5, Allan C Halpern6, John M Kirkwood7, Sancy A Leachman8, Ashfaq A Marghoob6, Michael E Ming9, Kelly C Nelson10, Emir Veledar11, Suraj S Venna12, Suephy C Chen13. 1. Pigmented Lesion Clinic and Cutaneous Oncology Program, Department of Dermatology, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program, Department of Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center, Palo Alto, California3Dermatology Service, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California. 3. Pigmented Lesion Clinic and Multidisciplinary Cutaneous Oncology Program, Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson. 4. Melanoma Program, Department of Dermatology, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. 5. Pigmented Lesion Clinic, Departments of Dermatology and Oncological Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 6. Pigmented Lesion Clinic, Dermatology Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 7. Melanoma Program, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Department of Medicine, Dermatology and Translational Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 8. Melanoma and Cutaneous Oncology Program, Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. 9. Pigmented Lesion Clinic, Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 10. Pigmented Lesion Clinic, Department of Dermatology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 11. Center for Research and Grants, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami. 12. Skin Oncology and Melanoma Center, Department of Medicine, MedStar Washington Cancer Institute and Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. 13. Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Clinic, Department of Dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia15Division of Dermatology, Atlanta Veterans Administration Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The management of clinically atypical nevi/dysplastic nevi (CAN/DN) is controversial, with few data to guide the process. Management recommendations for DN with positive histologic margins were developed by the Delphi method to achieve consensus among members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee (PLS) of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) after reviewing the current evidence. OBJECTIVES: To outline key issues related to the management of CAN/DN: (1) biopsies of CAN and how positive margins arise, (2) whether incompletely excised DN evolve into melanoma, (3) current data on the outcomes of DN with positive histologic margins, (4) consensus recommendations, and (5) a proposal for future studies, including a large-scale study to help guide the management of DN with positive margins. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The literature, including recent studies examining management and outcomes of DN with positive margins between 2009 to 2014, was reviewed. FINDINGS: A consensus statement by the PLS of the MPWG following review of the literature, group discussions, and a structured Delphi method consensus. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This consensus statement reviews the complexities of management of CAN/DN. A review of the literature and 2 rounds of a structured Delphi consensus resulted in the following recommendations: (1) mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be reexcised, (2) mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than reexcised, and (3) observation may be a reasonable option for management of moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation; however, more data are needed to make definitive recommendations in this clinical scenario.
IMPORTANCE: The management of clinically atypical nevi/dysplastic nevi (CAN/DN) is controversial, with few data to guide the process. Management recommendations for DN with positive histologic margins were developed by the Delphi method to achieve consensus among members of the Pigmented Lesion Subcommittee (PLS) of the Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) after reviewing the current evidence. OBJECTIVES: To outline key issues related to the management of CAN/DN: (1) biopsies of CAN and how positive margins arise, (2) whether incompletely excised DN evolve into melanoma, (3) current data on the outcomes of DN with positive histologic margins, (4) consensus recommendations, and (5) a proposal for future studies, including a large-scale study to help guide the management of DN with positive margins. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The literature, including recent studies examining management and outcomes of DN with positive margins between 2009 to 2014, was reviewed. FINDINGS: A consensus statement by the PLS of the MPWG following review of the literature, group discussions, and a structured Delphi method consensus. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This consensus statement reviews the complexities of management of CAN/DN. A review of the literature and 2 rounds of a structured Delphi consensus resulted in the following recommendations: (1) mildly and moderately DN with clear margins do not need to be reexcised, (2) mildly DN biopsied with positive histologic margins without clinical residual pigmentation may be safely observed rather than reexcised, and (3) observation may be a reasonable option for management of moderately DN with positive histologic margins without clinically apparent residual pigmentation; however, more data are needed to make definitive recommendations in this clinical scenario.
Authors: Michael N Kent; Thomas G Olsen; Theresa A Feeser; Katherine C Tesno; John C Moad; Michael P Conroy; Mary Jo Kendrick; Sean R Stephenson; Michael R Murchland; Ayesha U Khan; Elizabeth A Peacock; Alexa Brumfiel; Michael A Bottomley Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Douglas Grossman; Nwanneka Okwundu; Edmund K Bartlett; Michael A Marchetti; Megan Othus; Daniel G Coit; Rebecca I Hartman; Sancy A Leachman; Elizabeth G Berry; Larissa Korde; Sandra J Lee; Menashe Bar-Eli; Marianne Berwick; Tawnya Bowles; Elizabeth I Buchbinder; Elizabeth M Burton; Emily Y Chu; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Julia A Curtis; Adil Daud; Dekker C Deacon; Laura K Ferris; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Kenneth F Grossmann; Siwen Hu-Lieskovan; John Hyngstrom; Joanne M Jeter; Robert L Judson-Torres; Kari L Kendra; Caroline C Kim; John M Kirkwood; David H Lawson; Philip D Leming; Georgina V Long; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Janice M Mehnert; Michael E Ming; Kelly C Nelson; David Polsky; Richard A Scolyer; Eric A Smith; Vernon K Sondak; Mitchell S Stark; Jennifer A Stein; John A Thompson; John F Thompson; Suraj S Venna; Maria L Wei; Susan M Swetter Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Kachiu C Lee; Sue Peacock; Martin A Weinstock; Ge Alice Zhao; Stevan R Knezevich; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Jason P Lott; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Caroline C Kim; Elizabeth G Berry; Michael A Marchetti; Susan M Swetter; Geoffrey Lim; Douglas Grossman; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Emily Y Chu; Michael E Ming; Kathleen Zhu; Meera Brahmbhatt; Vijay Balakrishnan; Michael J Davis; Zachary Wolner; Nathaniel Fleming; Laura K Ferris; John Nguyen; Oleksandr Trofymenko; Yuan Liu; Suephy C Chen Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Inês P Santos; Remco van Doorn; Peter J Caspers; Tom C Bakker Schut; Elisa M Barroso; Tamar E C Nijsten; Vincent Noordhoek Hegt; Senada Koljenović; Gerwin J Puppels Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mustufa A Jafry; Sue Peacock; Andrea C Radick; Hannah L Shucard; Lisa M Reisch; Michael W Piepkorn; Stevan R Knezevich; Martin A Weinstock; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Kathleen F Kerr; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 11.527