Enzo Errichetti1, Balachandra Suryakant Ankad2, Sidharth Sonthalia3, Abhijeet Kumar Jha4, Vinay Keshavamurthy5, Athanassios Kyrgidis6, Shekhar Neema7, Manas Chatterjee8, Feroze Kaliyadan9, Sunil Dogra5, Soumil Khare10, Awatef Kelati11, Bengu Nisa Akay12, Horacio Cabo13, Yasmeen Jabeen Bhat14, Manal Bosseila15, Atula Gupta16, Pragya Nair17, Sakshi Gaikwad2, Puravoor Jayasree18, Emilia Noemi Cohen Sabban13, Giuseppe Stinco1, Zoe Apalla19, Iris Zalaudek20, Aimilios Lallas21. 1. Institute of Dermatology, "Santa Maria della Misericordia University Hospital, Udine, Italy. 2. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, SN Medical College, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India. 3. Skinnocence, Skin Clinic & Research Center, Gurugram, India. 4. Department of Dermatology & STD, Patna Medical College & Hospital, Patna, India. 5. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 6. Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece. 7. Department of Dermatology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, India. 8. Department of Dermatology, Command Hospital (Eastern Command), Kolkata, India. 9. Faculty of Dermatology, College of Medicine, Kind Faisal University, Al Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. 10. Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, India. 11. Dermatology Department, Cheikh Khalifa International University Hospital, Mohammed VI University of Health Sciences (UM6SS), Casablanca, Morocco. 12. Department of Dermatology, Ankara University, School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. 13. Dermatology Department, Instituto de Investigaciones Médicas A. Lanari, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina. 14. Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Government Medical College, Srinagar, University of Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir, India. 15. Dermatology Department, Cairo University, Egypt. 16. Skin-Aid Clinic, Gurugram, India. 17. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Pramukshwami Medical College, Karamsad, Gujarat, India. 18. Medical Trust Hospital, Cochin, Kerala, India. 19. Second Dermatology Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. 20. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 21. First Department of Dermatology, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy has been shown to be a useful supportive tool to assist the diagnosis of several non-neoplastic dermatoses (i.e. inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious skin diseases), yet data on skin of colour is still limited. OBJECTIVES: To characterize dermoscopic features of non-neoplastic dermatoses in dark-skinned patients in order to identify possible clues that may facilitate the differential diagnosis of clinically similar conditions. MATERIALS & METHODS: Members of the International Dermoscopy Society were invited to submit cases of any non-neoplastic dermatosis developing in patients with Fitzpatrick Phototypes V-VI whose diagnosis had been confirmed by the corresponding gold standard diagnostic test. A standardized assessment of the dermoscopic images and a comparative analysis according to clinical presentation were performed. Seven clinical categories were identified: (I) papulosquamous dermatoses; (II) facial hyperpigmented dermatoses; (III) extra-facial hyperpigmented dermatoses; (IV) hypopigmented dermatoses; (V) granulomatous dermatoses; (VI) sclerotic dermatoses; and (VII) facial inflammatory dermatoses. RESULTS: A total of 653 patients (541 and 112 with Phototype V and VI, respectively) were recruited for the analysis. Thirty-six statistically significant dermoscopic features were identified for papulosquamous dermatoses, 24 for facial hyperpigmented disorders, 12 for extra-facial hyperpigmented disorders, 17 for hypopigmented disorders, eight for granulomatous dermatoses, four for sclerotic dermatoses and 17 for facial inflammatory diseases. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that dermoscopy might be a useful tool in assisting the diagnosis of clinically similar non-neoplastic dermatoses in dark phototypes by revealing characteristic clues. Study limitations include the retrospective design, the lack of a direct dermoscopic-histological correlation analysis and the small sample size for less common diseases.
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy has been shown to be a useful supportive tool to assist the diagnosis of several non-neoplastic dermatoses (i.e. inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious skin diseases), yet data on skin of colour is still limited. OBJECTIVES: To characterize dermoscopic features of non-neoplastic dermatoses in dark-skinned patients in order to identify possible clues that may facilitate the differential diagnosis of clinically similar conditions. MATERIALS & METHODS: Members of the International Dermoscopy Society were invited to submit cases of any non-neoplastic dermatosis developing in patients with Fitzpatrick Phototypes V-VI whose diagnosis had been confirmed by the corresponding gold standard diagnostic test. A standardized assessment of the dermoscopic images and a comparative analysis according to clinical presentation were performed. Seven clinical categories were identified: (I) papulosquamous dermatoses; (II) facial hyperpigmented dermatoses; (III) extra-facial hyperpigmented dermatoses; (IV) hypopigmented dermatoses; (V) granulomatous dermatoses; (VI) sclerotic dermatoses; and (VII) facial inflammatory dermatoses. RESULTS: A total of 653 patients (541 and 112 with Phototype V and VI, respectively) were recruited for the analysis. Thirty-six statistically significant dermoscopic features were identified for papulosquamous dermatoses, 24 for facial hyperpigmented disorders, 12 for extra-facial hyperpigmented disorders, 17 for hypopigmented disorders, eight for granulomatous dermatoses, four for sclerotic dermatoses and 17 for facial inflammatory diseases. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that dermoscopy might be a useful tool in assisting the diagnosis of clinically similar non-neoplastic dermatoses in dark phototypes by revealing characteristic clues. Study limitations include the retrospective design, the lack of a direct dermoscopic-histological correlation analysis and the small sample size for less common diseases.