E Cinotti1,2, B Labeille1, S Debarbieux3, C Carrera4, F Lacarrubba5, A M Witkowski6, E Moscarella7, E Arzberger8, H Kittler9, P Bahadoran10, S Gonzalez11, P Guitera12, M Agozzino7, F Farnetani6, R Hofmann-Wellenhof8, M Ardigò13, P Rubegni2, L Tognetti2,14, J Łudzik15, I Zalaudek8, G Argenziano7, C Longo16, S Ribero17, J Malvehy4, G Pellacani6, F Cambazard1, J L Perrot1. 1. Department of Dermatology, University Hospital of St-Etienne, Saint-Etienne, France. 2. Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurological Science, Dermatology Section, University of Siena, S. Maria alle Scotte Hospital, Siena, Italy. 3. Departments of Dermatology, Centre Hospitalier Lyon Sud, Pierre Benite, France. 4. Melanoma Unit, Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Barcelona University, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Dermatology Clinic, University of Catania, Catania, Italy. 6. Department of Dermatology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. 7. Dermatology Unit, Second University of Naples, Nuovo Policlinico, Naples, Italy. 8. Department of Dermatology and Venerology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 9. Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 10. Department of Dermatology, Clinical Research Center, Hopital Archet 2, Nice, France. 11. Medicine and Medical Specialities Department, Madrid and Dermatology Department, Alcalá University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 12. Department of Dermatology, The University of Sydney, Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Centre and Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 13. Clinical Dermatology, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute, Rome, Italy. 14. Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. 15. Department of Bioinformatics and Telemedicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland. 16. Dermatology and Skin Cancer Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova-IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 17. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several dermoscopic and in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) diagnostic criteria of lentigo maligna (LM)/lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM) have been identified. However, no study compared the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy and RCM for LM/LMM using a holistic assessment of the images. METHODS: A total of 223 facial lesions were evaluated by 21 experts. Diagnostic accuracy of the clinical, dermoscopic and RCM examination was compared. Interinvestigator variability and confidence level in the diagnosis were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall diagnostic accuracy of the two imaging techniques was good (area under the curve of the sROC function: 0.89). RCM was more sensitive (80%, vs. 61%) and less specific (81% vs. 92%) than dermoscopy for LM/LMM. In particular, RCM showed a higher sensitivity for hypomelanotic and recurrent LM/LMM. RCM had a higher interinvestigator agreement and a higher confidence level in the diagnosis than dermoscopy. CONCLUSION: Reflectance confocal microscopy and dermoscopy are both useful techniques for the diagnosis of facial lesions and in particular LM/LMM. RCM is particularly suitable for the identification of hypomelanotic and recurrent LM/LMM.
BACKGROUND: Several dermoscopic and in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) diagnostic criteria of lentigo maligna (LM)/lentigo maligna melanoma (LMM) have been identified. However, no study compared the diagnostic accuracy of these techniques. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy and RCM for LM/LMM using a holistic assessment of the images. METHODS: A total of 223 facial lesions were evaluated by 21 experts. Diagnostic accuracy of the clinical, dermoscopic and RCM examination was compared. Interinvestigator variability and confidence level in the diagnosis were also evaluated. RESULTS: Overall diagnostic accuracy of the two imaging techniques was good (area under the curve of the sROC function: 0.89). RCM was more sensitive (80%, vs. 61%) and less specific (81% vs. 92%) than dermoscopy for LM/LMM. In particular, RCM showed a higher sensitivity for hypomelanotic and recurrent LM/LMM. RCM had a higher interinvestigator agreement and a higher confidence level in the diagnosis than dermoscopy. CONCLUSION: Reflectance confocal microscopy and dermoscopy are both useful techniques for the diagnosis of facial lesions and in particular LM/LMM. RCM is particularly suitable for the identification of hypomelanotic and recurrent LM/LMM.
Authors: C Navarrete-Dechent; M Cordova; K Liopyris; A Rishpon; S Aleissa; A M Rossi; E Lee; C-C J Chen; K J Busam; A A Marghoob; K S Nehal Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2019-08-23 Impact factor: 6.166
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: Cristian Navarrete-Dechent; Saud Aleissa; Karen Connolly; Brian P Hibler; Stephen W Dusza; Anthony M Rossi; Erica Lee; Kishwer S Nehal Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: E Cinotti; L Tognetti; A Cartocci; A Lamberti; S Gherbassi; C Orte Cano; C Lenoir; G Dejonckheere; G Diet; M Fontaine; M Miyamoto; J Perez-Anker; V Solmi; J Malvehy; V Del Marmol; J L Perrot; P Rubegni; M Suppa Journal: Clin Exp Dermatol Date: 2021-09-24 Impact factor: 4.481