Dermatoscopy of combined blue nevi: a multicentre study of the International Dermoscopy Society

BACKGROUND

Combined blue nevi (CBN) may mimic melanoma and are relatively often biopsied for diagnostic reasons.

OBJECTIVE

To better characterize CBN and to compare it with melanoma.

METHODS

We collected clinical and dermatoscopic images of 111 histologically confirmed CBN and contrasted their dermatoscopic characteristics with 132 partly blue coloured melanomas. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of human experts using pattern analysis with a computer algorithm based on deep learning.

RESULTS

Combined blue nevi are usually flat or slightly elevated and, in comparison with melanoma, more frequent on the head and neck. Dermatoscopically, they are typified by a blue structureless part in combination with either brown clods (n = 52, 46.8%), lines (n = 28, 25.2%) or skin-coloured or brown structureless areas (n = 31, 27.9%). In contrast with melanoma, the blue part of CBN is more often well defined (18.9% vs. 4.5%, P < 0.001) and more often located in the centre (22.5% vs. 5.3%, P < 0.001). Melanomas are more often chaotic (OR: 28.7, 95% CI: 14.8-55.7, P < 0.001), have at least one melanoma clue (OR: 10.8, 95% CI: 5.2-22.2 P < 0.001) in particular white lines (OR: 37.1, 95% CI: 13.4-102.9, P < 0.001). Using simplified pattern analysis (chaos and clues), two raters reached sensitivities of 93.9% (95% CI: 88.4-97.3%) and 92.4% (95% CI: 86.5-96.3%) at corresponding specificities of 59.5% (95% CI: 49.7-68.7%) and 65.8% (95% CI: 56.2-74.5%). The human accuracy with pattern analysis was on par with a state-of-the-art computer algorithm based on deep learning that achieved an area under the curve of (0.92, 95% CI: 0.87-0.96) and a specificity of 85.3% (95% CI: 76.5-91.7%) at a given sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI: 72.5-91.5%).

CONCLUSION

CBN usually lack melanoma clues, in particular white lines. The accuracy of pattern analysis for combined nevi is acceptable, and histopathologic confirmation may not be necessary in exemplary cases.

Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

BACKGROUND

There is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy.

OBJECTIVE

To establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy.

METHODS

We conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered 'accepted' and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with <75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms.

RESULTS

The Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (≥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases-Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method.

CONCLUSIONS

We have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation.

The evolving field of Dermato-oncology and the role of dermatologists: Position Paper of the EADO, EADV and Task Forces, EDF, IDS, EBDV-UEMS and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force

BACKGROUND

The incidence of skin cancers has been increasing steadily over the last decades. Although there have been significant breakthroughs in the management of skin cancers with the introduction of novel diagnostic tools and innovative therapies, skin cancer mortality, morbidity and costs heavily burden the society.

OBJECTIVE

Members of the European Association of Dermato-Oncology, European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, International Dermoscopy Society, European Dermatology Forum, European Board of Dermatovenereology of the European Union of Medical Specialists and EORTC Cutaneous Lymphoma Task Force have joined this effort to emphasize the fundamental role that the specialist in Dermatology-Venereology has in the diagnosis and management of different types of skin cancer. We review the role of dermatologists in the prevention, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancers and cutaneous lymphomas, and discuss approaches to optimize their involvement in effectively addressing the current needs and priorities of dermato-oncology.

DISCUSSION

Dermatologists play a crucial role in virtually all aspects of skin cancer management including the implementation of primary and secondary prevention, the formation of standardized pathways of care for patients, the establishment of specialized skin cancer treatment centres, the coordination of an efficient multidisciplinary team and the setting up of specific follow-up plans for patients.

CONCLUSION

Skin cancers represent an important health issue for modern societies. The role of dermatologists is central to improving patient care and outcomes. In view of the emerging diagnostic methods and treatments for early and advanced skin cancer, and considering the increasingly diverse skills, knowledge and expertise needed for managing this heterogeneous group of diseases, dermato-oncology should be considered as a specific subspecialty of Dermatology-Venereology.

Dermatoscopic features of thin (≤2 mm Breslow thickness) vs. thick (>2 mm Breslow thickness) nodular melanoma and predictors of nodular melanoma versus nodular non-melanoma tumours: a multicentric collaborative study by the International Dermoscopy Society

BACKGROUND

Thin nodular melanoma (NM) often lacks conspicuous melanoma-specific dermatoscopic criteria and escapes clinical detection until it progresses to a thicker and more advanced tumour.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the dermatoscopic morphology of thin (≤2 mm Breslow thickness) vs. thick (>2 mm) NM and to identify dermatoscopic predictors of its differential diagnosis from other nodular tumours.

METHODS

Retrospective, morphological case-control study, conducted on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society. Dermatoscopic images of NM and other nodular tumours from 19 skin cancer centres worldwide were collected and analysed.

RESULTS

Overall, 254 tumours were collected (69 NM of Breslow thickness ≤2 mm, 96 NM >2 mm and 89 non-melanoma nodular lesions). Light brown coloration (50.7%) and irregular brown dots/globules (42.0%) were most frequently observed in ≤2 mm NMs. Multivariate analysis revealed that dotted vessels (3.4-fold), white shiny streaks (2.9-fold) and irregular blue structureless area (2.4-fold) were predictors for thinner NM compared to non-melanoma nodular tumours. Overall, irregular blue structureless area (3.4-fold), dotted vessels (4.6-fold) and serpentine vessels (1.9-fold) were predictors of all NM compared to non-melanoma nodular lesions.

LIMITATIONS

Absence of a centralized, consensus pathology review and cases selected form tertiary centres maybe not reflecting the broader community.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study sheds light into the dermatoscopic morphology of thin NM in comparison to thicker NM and could provide useful clues for its differential diagnosis from other non-melanoma nodular tumours.

The impact of anatomical location and sun exposure on the dermoscopic recognition of atypical nevi and early melanomas: usefulness of an integrated clinical-dermoscopic method (iDScore)

BACKGROUND

The anatomical location of atypical melanocytic skin lesion (aMSL) was never combined into an algorithm for discriminating early melanomas (EM) from atypical nevi (AN).

AIMS

To investigate the impact of body location on the intuitive diagnosis performed in teledermoscopy by dermatologists of different skill levels. A further aim was to evaluate how the integration of the body location could improve an algorithm-aided diagnosis.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 980 standardized dermoscopic images of aMSL cases (663 AN, 317 EM): data on the anatomical location were collected according to 15 body sites classified into 4 macro-areas of chronically/frequently/seldom/rarely exposure. Through a teledermatology web platform, 111 variously skilled dermoscopists performed either the intuitive diagnosis and 3 algorithm-assisted diagnostic tests (i.e. iDScore, 7-point checklist, ABCD rule) on each case, for a total of 3330 examinations.

RESULTS

In the rarely photoexposed area (side, bottom, abdomen), AN were the most tricky (i.e. highest quote of false positives), due to a frequent recognition of dermoscopic features usually considered as suggestive for melanoma in these lesions; the EM at these sites received the highest quote of false negatives, being generally interpreted as 'featureless' according to these traditional parameters, that were more frequently displayed on the chronically photoexposed area. In rarely and seldom photoexposed area, intuitive diagnosis fails to achieve adequate accuracy for all aMSLs, as the ABCD rule and the 7-point checklist; by applying the iDScore algorithm the diagnostic performance was increased by 15% in young and 17% in experts.

CONCLUSIONS

The body location of an aMSL can affect the quality of intuitive dermoscopic diagnosis, especially in sun-protected areas. Accuracy can be improved by using the iDScore algorithm that assigns a different partial score of each body site.

The presence of eccentric hyperpigmentation should raise the suspicion of melanoma

BACKGROUND

Melanocytic lesions with eccentric hyperpigmentation (EH), even though without other dermatoscopic features of melanoma, are often excised.

OBJECTIVE

Aiming to understand whether the EH in a pigmented lesion is an accurate criterion of malignancy, we evaluated the capability of two evaluators, with different expertise, to correctly diagnose a melanoma when analysing a given lesion in toto versus a partial analysis, with only the EH or the non-hyperpigmented portion (non-EH) visible.

METHODS

Dermatoscopic images of 240 lesions (107 melanomas and 133 nevi) typified by EH were selected. Facial, acral, mucosal lesions and lesions showing clear-cut features of melanoma (except for atypical network) were excluded. Clinical and dermoscopic features (main pattern and numbers of colours) were described for all cases. Each image was split in two through a software so that only the EH or the non-EH was visible. Two blinded evaluators examined three sets of images, two with customized images and one with the non-modified ones: they were asked to give a dichotomous diagnosis (melanoma or nevus) for each image.

RESULTS

Melanomas were significantly more frequently typified by colour variegation (3 colours in 44.8% and 4 colours in 41.1% of cases) and atypical network (88.1% in the EH). No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy emerged between the two evaluators. Sensitivity improved in the evaluation of the whole lesions (mean sensitivity 89.7%) in comparison with the evaluation of EH or non-EH alone (72.7-62.6%). Specificity increased when evaluating the EH (54.1%). Positive predictive value (PPV) and likelihood ratio (LR+) of EH resulted 52.3% and 1.4, meaning that in one case out of two with EH is a melanoma.

CONCLUSIONS

Lesions with EH are challenging, regardless of dermoscopic experience. The EH is a robust criterion for malignancy, since the evaluation of the whole lesion, through an intralesional comparative approach, increases sensitivity.

Dermoscopy in the differential diagnosis between malar rash of systemic lupus erythematosus and erythematotelangiectatic rosacea: an observational study

Background

Malar rash is one of the three cutaneous diagnostic criteria of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Although its clinical recognition is often straightforward, the differential diagnosis with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea may sometimes be challenging.

Objective

To describe dermoscopic features of SLE malar rash and investigate the accuracy of dermoscopy for the differential diagnosis with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.

Methods

A representative dermoscopic image of target areas was evaluated for the presence of specific features. Fisher’s test was used to compare their prevalence between the two cohorts, and accuracy parameters (specificity, sensitivity, and positive and negative predictive values) were evaluated.

Results

Twenty-eight patients were included in the analysis, of which 13 had SLE malar rash and 15 erythematotelangiectatic rosacea. The main dermoscopic features of malar rash were reddish/salmon-coloured follicular dots surrounded by white halos (‘inverse strawberry’ pattern), being present in 53.9% of the cases, while network-like vessels (vascular polygons) turned out to be the main feature of erythematotelangiectatic rosacea, with a prevalence of 93.3%. The comparative analysis showed that the ‘inverse strawberry’ pattern was significantly more common in SLE malar rash, with a specificity of 86.7%, while vascular polygons were significantly more frequent in rosacea, with a specificity of 92.3%.

Conclusion

Dermoscopy may be a useful support to distinguish SLE malar rash and erythematotelangiectatic rosacea by showing peculiar features.

Standardization of dermoscopic terminology and basic dermoscopic parameters to evaluate in general dermatology (non-neoplastic dermatoses): an expert consensus on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society

BACKGROUND

Over the last few years, several articles on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses have been published, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to standardize the dermoscopic terminology and identify basic parameters to evaluate in non-neoplastic dermatoses through an expert consensus.

METHODS

The modified Delphi method was followed, with two phases: (i) identification of a list of possible items based on a systematic literature review and (ii) selection of parameters by a panel of experts through a three-step iterative procedure (blinded e-mail interaction in rounds 1 and 3 and a face-to-face meeting in round 2). Initial panellists were recruited via e-mail from all over the world based on their expertise on dermoscopy of non-neoplastic dermatoses.

RESULTS

Twenty-four international experts took part in all rounds of the consensus and 13 further international participants were also involved in round 2. Five standardized basic parameters were identified: (i) vessels (including morphology and distribution); (ii) scales (including colour and distribution); (iii) follicular findings; (iv) 'other structures' (including colour and morphology); and (v) 'specific clues'. For each of them, possible variables were selected, with a total of 31 different subitems reaching agreement at the end of the consensus (all of the 29 proposed initially plus two more added in the course of the consensus procedure).

CONCLUSIONS

This expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This tool, if adopted by clinicians and researchers in this field, is likely to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology. What's already known about this topic? Over the last few years, several papers have been published attempting to describe the dermoscopic features of non-neoplastic dermatoses, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. What does this study add? The present expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This consensus should enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology.

The prevalent dermoscopic criterion to distinguish between benign and suspicious pink tumours

BACKGROUND

Pink skin tumours are difficult to differentiate, clinically and dermoscopically. In previous studies, mainly focused on pigmented lesions, pattern analysis provided the best sensitivity and specificity values, as compared to other algorithms. These findings suggest that the global dermoscopic appearance, based on the evaluation of prevalent features, could represent a valuable and practical approach even when dealing with pink lesions.

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a new dermoscopic approach for pink tumours based on the prevalent criterion, as compared to a standard diagnostic method (Menzies algorithm).

METHODS

The databases of two referral centres were retrospectively evaluated to retrieve dermoscopic images of amelanotic/hypomelanotic skin lesions. Two experts in dermoscopy, blinded for the final diagnosis and for clinical and demographic information, evaluated separately dermoscopic pictures of 1000 lesions according to the Menzies score and to the prevalent criterion method.

RESULTS

According to the high sensitivity model of the Menzies score, 129 (12.9%) lesions were considered as non-suspicious (of which 16 were false negative) and 871 (87.1%) as suspicious (of which 212 were false positive), with 97.6% sensitivity and 34.8% specificity. According to the high specificity model, 370 (37%) lesions were evaluated as non-suspicious (of which 105 were false negative) and 630 (63%) as suspicious (of which 60 were false positive), with 84.4% sensitivity and 81.5% specificity. Concerning the prevalent criterion method, 316 (31.6%) lesions were evaluated as non-suspicious (of which 46 were false negative) and 684 (68.4) as suspicious (of which 55 were false positive), with 93.2% sensitivity and 83.1% specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that focusing on the prevalent dermoscopic features could allow to detect malignant pink tumours with similar sensitivity but higher specificity than using the conventional Menzies scoring system.

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SC-specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC.