P Guitera1,2,3, S W Menzies1,2, G Argenziano4, C Longo5, A Losi6, M Drummond7, R A Scolyer3,8,9, G Pellacani6. 1. Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Centre and Dermatology Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 2. Discipline of Dermatology, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Melanoma Institute Australia, 40 Rocklands Road, North Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Dermatology Unit, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy. 5. Dermatology and Skin Cancer Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 6. Department of Dermatology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 7. Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 8. Department of Tissue Pathology and Diagnostic Oncology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW, Australia. 9. Discipline of Pathology, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Amelanotic melanomas are often difficult to diagnose. OBJECTIVES: To find and test the best methods of diagnosis using dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) tools. METHODS: We selected consecutive, difficult-to-diagnose, light-coloured and amelanotic skin lesions from three centres (in Australia and Italy). Dermoscopy and RCM diagnostic utility were evaluated under blinded conditions utilizing 45 melanomas (16 in situ, 29 invasive), 68 naevi, 48 basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), 10 actinic keratoses, 10 squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and 13 other benign lesions. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for melanoma with dermoscopy pattern analysis by two blinded observers and their 'confidence in diagnosis' were low. The amelanotic dermoscopy method had the highest sensitivity (83%) for a diagnosis of malignancy (melanoma, BCC or SCC), but specificity was only 18%. Multivariate analysis confirmed the utility of RCM features previously identified for the diagnosis of BCC and melanoma (highest odds ratio for melanoma: epidermal disarray, dark and/or round pagetoid cells). RCM sensitivity was 67% and 73% for melanoma and BCC diagnosis, respectively, and its specificity for nonmalignant lesion diagnosis was 56%. RCM reader confidence was higher than for dermoscopy; 84% of melanomas would have been biopsied and biopsy avoided in 47% of benign lesions. All melanomas misclassified by either dermoscopy or RCM were detected by the other tool. CONCLUSIONS: Dermoscopy and RCM represent complementary/synergistic methods for diagnosis of amelanotic/light-coloured skin lesions.
BACKGROUND:Amelanotic melanomas are often difficult to diagnose. OBJECTIVES: To find and test the best methods of diagnosis using dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) tools. METHODS: We selected consecutive, difficult-to-diagnose, light-coloured and amelanotic skin lesions from three centres (in Australia and Italy). Dermoscopy and RCM diagnostic utility were evaluated under blinded conditions utilizing 45 melanomas (16 in situ, 29 invasive), 68 naevi, 48 basal cell carcinomas (BCCs), 10 actinic keratoses, 10 squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) and 13 other benign lesions. RESULTS: Sensitivity and specificity for melanoma with dermoscopy pattern analysis by two blinded observers and their 'confidence in diagnosis' were low. The amelanotic dermoscopy method had the highest sensitivity (83%) for a diagnosis of malignancy (melanoma, BCC or SCC), but specificity was only 18%. Multivariate analysis confirmed the utility of RCM features previously identified for the diagnosis of BCC and melanoma (highest odds ratio for melanoma: epidermal disarray, dark and/or round pagetoid cells). RCM sensitivity was 67% and 73% for melanoma and BCC diagnosis, respectively, and its specificity for nonmalignant lesion diagnosis was 56%. RCM reader confidence was higher than for dermoscopy; 84% of melanomas would have been biopsied and biopsy avoided in 47% of benign lesions. All melanomas misclassified by either dermoscopy or RCM were detected by the other tool. CONCLUSIONS: Dermoscopy and RCM represent complementary/synergistic methods for diagnosis of amelanotic/light-coloured skin lesions.
Authors: Brian P Hibler; Oriol Yélamos; Miguel Cordova; Heidy Sierra; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Kishwer S Nehal; Anthony M Rossi Journal: Cutis Date: 2017-05
Authors: Cristian Navarrete-Dechent; Antonio P DeRosa; Caterina Longo; Konstantinos Liopyris; Margaret Oliviero; Harold Rabinovitz; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Allan C Halpern; Giovanni Pellacani; Alon Scope; Manu Jain Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-12-08 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Milind Rajadhyaksha; Ashfaq Marghoob; Anthony Rossi; Allan C Halpern; Kishwer S Nehal Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Aditi Sahu; Jose Cordero; Xiancheng Wu; Susanne Kossatz; Ucalene Harris; Paula Demetrio Desouza Franca; Nicholas R Kurtansky; Niasia Everett; Stephen Dusza; Jilliana Monnier; Piyush Kumar; Christi Fox; Christian Brand; Sheryl Roberts; Kivanc Kose; William Phillips; Erica Lee; Chih-Shan Jason Chen; Anthony Rossi; Kishwer Nehal; Melissa Pulitzer; Caterina Longo; Allan Halpern; Thomas Reiner; Milind Rajadhyaksha; Manu Jain Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-10-14 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Cristian Navarrete-Dechent; Konstantinos Liopyris; Jilliana Monnier; Saud Aleissa; Lindsay M Boyce; Caterina Longo; Margaret Oliviero; Harold Rabinovitz; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Allan C Halpern; Giovanni Pellacani; Alon Scope; Manu Jain Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Naomi Chuchu; Rubeta N Matin; Kai Yuen Wong; Roger Benjamin Aldridge; Alana Durack; Abha Gulati; Sue Ann Chan; Louise Johnston; Susan E Bayliss; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Yemisi Takwoingi; Clare Davenport; Colette O'Sullivan; Hamid Tehrani; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04