Long-Term Sequential Digital Dermoscopy of Low-Risk Patients May Not Improve Early Diagnosis of Melanoma Compared to Periodical Handheld Dermoscopy
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Patients and Methods
Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Young, A.T.; Vora, N.B.; Cortez, J.; Tam, A.; Yeniay, Y.; Afifi, L.; Yan, D.; Nosrati, A.; Wong, A.; Johal, A.; et al. The role of technology in melanoma screening and diagnosis. Pigment. Cell Melanoma Res. 2020, 34, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soltani-Arabshahi, R.; Sweeney, C.; Jones, B.; Florell, S.R.; Hu, N.; Grossman, D. Predictive value of biopsy specimens suspicious for melanoma: Support for 6-mm criterion in the ABCD rule. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2015, 72, 412–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murzaku, E.C.; Hayan, S.; Rao, B.K. Methods and rates of dermoscopy usage: A cross-sectional survey of US dermatologists stratified by years in practice. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2014, 71, 393–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pehamberger, H.; Steiner, A.; Wolff, K. In vivo epiluminescence microscopy of pigmented skin lesions. I. Pattern analysis of pigmented skin lesions. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1987, 17, 571–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kittler, H.; Pehamberger, H.; Wolff, K.; Binder, M. Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol. 2002, 3, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bafounta, M.L.; Beauchet, A.; Aegerter, P.; Saiag, P. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch. Dermatol. 2001, 137, 1343–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vestergaard, M.; Macaskill, P.; Holt, P.; Menzies, S. Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: A meta-analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting. Br. J. Dermatol. 2008, 159, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dinnes, J.; Deeks, J.J.; Chuchu, N.; di Ruffano, L.F.; Matin, R.N.; Thomson, D.R.; Wong, K.Y.; Aldridge, R.B.; Abbott, R.; Fawzy, M.; et al. Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosing melanoma in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 2018, CD011902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argenziano, G.; Albertini, G.; Castagnetti, F.; De Pace, B.; Di Lernia, V.; Longo, C.; Pellacani, G.; Piana, S.; Ricci, C.; Zalaudek, I. Early diagnosis of melanoma: What is the impact of dermoscopy? Dermatol. Ther. 2012, 25, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puig, S.; Argenziano, G.; Zalaudek, I.; Ferrara, G.; Palou, J.; Massi, D.; Hofmann-Wellenhof, R.; Soyer, H.P.; Malvehy, J. Melanomas That Failed Dermoscopic Detection: A Combined Clinicodermoscopic Approach for Not Missing Melanoma. Dermatol. Surg. 2007, 33, 1262–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menzies, S.W.; Ingvar, C.; Crotty, K.A.; McCarthy, W.H. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch. Dermatol. 1996, 132, 1178–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittler, H.; Seltenheim, M.; Dawid, M.; Pehamberger, H.; Wolff, K.; Binder, M. Morphologic changes of pigmented skin lesions: A useful extension of the ABCD rule for dermatoscopy. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1999, 40, 558–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Banky, J.P.; Kelly, J.W.; English, D.R.; Yeatman, J.M.; Dowling, J.P. Incidence of New and Changed Nevi and Melanomas Detected Using Baseline Images and Dermoscopy in Patients at High Risk for Melanoma. Arch. Dermatol. 2005, 141, 998–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rhodes, A.R. Intervention strategy to prevent lethal cutaneous melanoma: Use of dermatologic photography to aid surveillance of high-risk persons. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 1998, 39, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salerni, G.; Carrera, C.; Lovatto, L.; Puig-Butille, J.A.; Badenas, C.; Plana, E.; Puig, S.; Malvehy, J. Benefits of total body photography and digital dermatoscopy (“two-step method of digital follow-up”) in the early diagnosis of melanoma in patients at high risk for melanoma. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2012, 67, e17–e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Watts, C.; Dieng, M.; Morton, R.; Mann, G.; Menzies, S.; Cust, A. Clinical practice guidelines for identification, screening and follow-up of individuals at high risk of primary cutaneous melanoma: A systematic review. Br. J. Dermatol. 2014, 172, 33–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salerni, G.; Terán, T.; Puig, S.; Malvehy, J.; Zalaudek, I.; Argenziano, G.; Kittler, H. Meta-analysis of digital dermoscopy follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions: A study on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society. J. Eur. Acad. Dermatol. Venereol. 2012, 27, 805–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schiffner, R.; Schiffner-Rohe, J.; Landthaler, M.; Stolz, W. Long-term dermoscopic follow-up of melanocytic naevi: Clinical outcome and patient compliance. Br. J. Dermatol. 2003, 149, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haenssle, H.A.; Korpas, B.; Hansen-Hagge, C.; Buhl, T.; Kaune, K.M.; Johnsen, S.; Rosenberger, A.; Schön, M.; Emmert, S. Selection of Patients for Long-term Surveillance with Digital Dermoscopy by Assessment of Melanoma Risk Factors. Arch. Dermatol. 2010, 146, 257–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Argenziano, G.; Fabbrocini, G.; Carli, P.; De Giorgi, V.; Sammarco, E.; Delfino, M. Epiluminescence microscopy for the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. Comparison of the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy and a new 7-point checklist based on pattern analysis. Arch. Dermatol. 1998, 134, 1563–1570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gershenwald, J.E.; Scolyer, R.A.; Hess, K.R.; Sondak, V.K.; Long, G.V.; Ross, M.I.; Lazar, A.J.; Faries, M.B.; Kirkwood, J.M.; McArthur, G.A.; et al. Melanoma staging: Evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2017, 67, 472–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, L.; Puig, S. Dermoscopy, Digital Dermoscopy and Other Diagnostic Tools in the Early Detection of Melanoma and Follow-up of High-risk Skin Cancer Patients. Acta Derm.-Venereol. 2017, 97 (Suppl. S218), 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Babino, G.; Lallas, A.; Agozzino, M.; Alfano, R.; Apalla, Z.; Brancaccio, G.; Giorgio, C.M.; Fulgione, E.; Kittler, H.; Kyrgidis, A.; et al. Melanoma diagnosed on digital dermoscopy monitoring: A side-by-side image comparison is needed to improve early detection. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2020, 85, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schäfer, I.; Reusch, M.; Siebert, J.; Hilbring, C.; Augustin, M. Assoziation von Krankenversicherung und soziodemografischen Faktoren mit der Versorgung maligner Melanome [Association of Health Insurance and Socio-economic Factors with Health Care for Malignant Melanoma]. Gesundheitswesen 2017, 79, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mandalà, M.; Imberti, G.L.; Piazzalunga, D.; Belfiglio, M.; Lucisano, G.; Labianca, R.; Marchesi, L.; Merelli, B.; Robone, S.; Poletti, P.; et al. Association of Socioeconomic Status with Breslow Thickness and Disease-Free and Overall Survival in Stage I-II Primary Cutaneous Melanoma. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2011, 86, 113–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rademaker, M.; Oakley, A. Digital monitoring by whole body photography and sequential digital dermoscopy detects thinner melanomas. J. Prim. Health Care 2010, 2, 268–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kofler, L.; Egger, M.; Kofler, H. Sequenziell digitale Dermatoskopie. Wie groß ist der Zeitaufwand pro Patient? [Sequential digital dermatoscopic imaging. How much time is required per patient?]. Hautarzt 2014, 65, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalaudek, I.; Kittler, H.; Marghoob, A.A.; Balato, A.; Blum, A.; Dalle, S.; Ferrara, G.; Fink-Puches, R.; Giorgio, C.M.; Hofmann-Wellenhof, R.; et al. Time required for a complete skin examination with and without dermoscopy: A prospective, randomized multicenter study. Arch. Dermatol. 2008, 144, 509–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kittler, H.; Binder, M. Risks and benefits of sequential imaging of melanocytic skin lesions in patients with multiple atypical nevi. Arch. Dermatol. 2001, 137, 1590–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argenziano, G.; Mordente, I.; Ferrara, G.; Sgambato, A.; Annese, P.; Zalaudek, I. Dermoscopic monitoring of melanocytic skin lesions: Clinical outcome and patient compliance vary according to follow-up protocols. Br. J. Dermatol. 2008, 159, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, S.L.; Haenssle, H.A. Early detection of cutaneous melanoma by sequential digital dermatoscopy (SDD). JDDG J. der Dtsch. Dermatol. Ges. 2013, 11, 509–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Handheld Dermoscopy | Digital Dermoscopy | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All (n = 471) | First-Time (n = 396) | Periodical (n = 75) | p | All (n = 150) | First-Time (n = 91) | Sequential (n = 59) | p | |
Age (years) | 56.65 ± 15.92 | 56.26 ± 15.96 | 58.69 ± 15.67 | ns | 47.99 ± 13.74 | 48.97 ± 14.53 | 44.49 ± 12.38 | ns |
Gender | ||||||||
Females | 233 (49.47%) | 198 (50%) | 40 (53.33%) | <0.01 | 75 (50%) | 46 (50.55%) | 29 (47.54%) | ns |
Males | 238 (50.53%) | 198 (50%) | 35 (46.67%) | 75 (50%) | 45 (49.45%) | 30 (52.46%) | ||
Location | ||||||||
Head/neck | 33 (7.01%) | 28 (7.07%) | 5 (6.67%) | <0.01 | 6 (4%) | 1 (1.1%) | 5 (8.47%) | <0.05 |
Trunk | 252 (53.50%) | 212 (53.54%) | 40 (53.33%) | 93 (62%) | 34 (60.44%) | 38 (64.41%) | ||
Upper limb | 69 (14.65%) | 59 (14.9%) | 10 (1.33%) | 11 (7.33%) | 8 (8.79%) | 3 (5.08%) | ||
Lower limb | 117 (24.84%) | 97 (24.49%) | 20 (26.67%) | 40 (26.67%) | 27 (29.67%) | 13 (22.03%) | ||
Associated nevus | 150 (31.85%) | 125 (31.56%) | 25 (33.33%) | ns | 63 (42%) | 38 (41.76%) | 25 (42.37%) | ns |
AJCC pT stage | ||||||||
pTis | 242 (51.38%) | 201 (50.76%) | 41 (54.66%) | <0.05 | 87 (58%) | 47 (51.65%) | 40 (67.8%) | ns |
pT1a | 147 (31.21%) | 119 (30.05%) | 28 (37.33%) | 55 (36.67%) | 37 (40.66%) | 18 (30.51%) | ||
pT1b | 27 (5.73%) | 25 (6.31%) | 2 (2.67%) | 5 (3.33%) | 4 (4.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | ||
pT2a | 15 (3.18%) | 15 (3.70%) | 0 | 1 (0.67%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 | ||
pT2b | 8 (1.7%) | 6 (1.51%) | 2 (2.67%) | 1 (0.67%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 | ||
pT3a | 7 (1.49%) | 7 (1.77%) | 0 | 1 (0.67%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 | ||
pT3b | 8 (1.7%) | 7 (1.77%) | 1 (1.33%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
pT4a | 2 (0.42%) | 2 (0.51%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
pT4b | 15 (3.18%) | 14 (3.53%) | 1 (1.33%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Breslow thickness (mm) | 0.59 ± 1.61 | 0.63 ± 1.68 | 0.36 ± 1.10 | ns | 0.21± 0.36 | 0.25 ± 0.42 | 0.13 ± 0.22 | ns |
Ulceration | 42 (8.9%) | 37 (9.34%) | 5 (6.67%) | <0.01 | 2 (1.33%) | 1 (1.1%) | 1 (1.69%) | ns |
Time to diagnosis (months) | 6.77 ± 21.39 | - | 40.93 ± 37.04 | - | 12.32 ± 20.82 | - | 31.33 ± 22.54 | - |
Number of examinations | 1.34 ± 0.98 | 1 | 3.08 ± 1.54 | - | 1.81 ± 1.35 | 1 | 3.05 ± 1.44 | - |
Follow-up interval (months) | 4.01 ± 13.08 | - | 24.25 ± 24.63 | - | 6.78 ± 12.91 | - | 17.23 ± 15.66 | - |
First-Time Dermoscopy | Long-Term Periodical Dermoscopy | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All (n = 487) | Handheld (n = 396) | Digital (n = 91) | p | All (n = 134) | Handheld (n = 75) | Digital (SDD) (n = 59) | p | |
Age (years) | 54.9 ± 15.95 | 56.26 ± 15.96 | 48.97 ± 14.53 | <0.01 | 53.32 ± 15.51 | 58.69 ± 15.67 | 46.49 ± 12.38 | <0.01 |
Gender | 64 (47.76%) | 35 (46.67%) | 29 (49.15%) | |||||
Females | 244 (50.1%) | 198 (50%) | 46 (50.55%) | ns | ns | |||
Males | 243 (49.9%) | 198 (50%) | 45 (49.45%) | 70 (52.24%) | 40 (53.33%) | 30 (50.85%) | ||
Location | ||||||||
Head/neck | 29 (5.95%) | 28 (7.07%) | 1 (1.1%) | <0.01 | 10 (7.46%) | 5 (6.67%) | 5 (6.67%) | ns |
Trunk | 267 (54.83%) | 212 (53.54%) | 34 (60.44%) | 78 (58.21%) | 40 (53.33%) | 38 (50.67%) | ||
Upper limb | 67 (13.76%) | 59 (14.9%) | 8 (8.79%) | 13 (9.7%) | 12 (16%) | 1 (1.69%) | ||
Lower limb | 124 (25.46%) | 97 (24.49%) | 27 (29.67%) | 33 (24.63%) | 20 (26.67%) | 13 (22.03%) | ||
Associated nevus | 163 (33.47%) | 125 (31.56%) | 38 (41.76%) | <0.01 | 50 (37.31%) | 25 (33.33%) | 25 (42.37%) | ns |
AJCC pT stage | ||||||||
pTis | 248 (50.92%) | 201 (50.76%) | 47 (51.65%) | <0.05 | 81 (60.45%) | 41 (54.67%) | 40 (67.8%) | ns |
pT1a | 156 (32.03%) | 119 (30.05%) | 37 (40.66%) | 46 (34.33%) | 28 (37.33%) | 18 (30.51%) | ||
pT1b | 29 (5.95%) | 25 (6.31%) | 4 (4.4%) | 3 (2.24%) | 2 (2.67%) | 1 (1.69%) | ||
pT2a | 16 (3.29%) | 15 (3.70%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
pT2b | 7 (1.44%) | 6 (1.51%) | 1 (1.1%) | 2 (1.49%) | 2 (2.67%) | 0 | ||
pT3a | 8 (1.64%) | 7 (1.77%) | 1 (1.1%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
pT3b | 7 (1.44%) | 7 (1.77%) | 0 | 1 (0.75%) | 1 (1.33%) | 0 | ||
pT4a | 2 (0.41%) | 2 (0.51%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
pT4b | 14 (2.87%) | 14 (3.53%) | 0 | 1 (0.75%) | 1 (1.33%) | 0 | ||
Breslow thickness (mm) | 0.56 ± 1.53 | 0.63 ± 1.68 | 0.25 ± 0.42 | <0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.84 | 0.36 ± 1.1 | 0.13 ± 0.22 | ns |
Ulceration | 38 (7.8%) | 37 (9.34%) | 1 (1.1%) | <0.01 | 6 (4.48%) | 5 (6.67%) | 1 (1.69%) | ns |
Time to diagnosis (months) | - | - | - | - | 36.7 ± 31.74 | 40.93 ± 37.04 | 31.33 ± 22.54 | ns |
Number of examinations | 1 | 1 | 1 | - | 3.07 ± 1.49 | 3.08 ± 1.54 | 3.05 ± 1.44 | ns |
Follow-up period (months) | - | - | - | - | 21.16 ± 21.37 | 24.25 ± 24.63 | 17.23 ± 15.66 | ns |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Borroni, R.G.; Panasiti, V.; Valenti, M.; Gargiulo, L.; Perrone, G.; Dall’Alba, R.; Fava, C.; Sacrini, F.; Mancini, L.L.; Manara, S.A.A.M.; et al. Long-Term Sequential Digital Dermoscopy of Low-Risk Patients May Not Improve Early Diagnosis of Melanoma Compared to Periodical Handheld Dermoscopy. Cancers 2023, 15, 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041129
Borroni RG, Panasiti V, Valenti M, Gargiulo L, Perrone G, Dall’Alba R, Fava C, Sacrini F, Mancini LL, Manara SAAM, et al. Long-Term Sequential Digital Dermoscopy of Low-Risk Patients May Not Improve Early Diagnosis of Melanoma Compared to Periodical Handheld Dermoscopy. Cancers. 2023; 15(4):1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041129
Chicago/Turabian StyleBorroni, Riccardo G., Vincenzo Panasiti, Mario Valenti, Luigi Gargiulo, Giuseppe Perrone, Roberta Dall’Alba, Clarissa Fava, Francesco Sacrini, Luca L. Mancini, Sofia A. A. M. Manara, and et al. 2023. "Long-Term Sequential Digital Dermoscopy of Low-Risk Patients May Not Improve Early Diagnosis of Melanoma Compared to Periodical Handheld Dermoscopy" Cancers 15, no. 4: 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041129
APA StyleBorroni, R. G., Panasiti, V., Valenti, M., Gargiulo, L., Perrone, G., Dall’Alba, R., Fava, C., Sacrini, F., Mancini, L. L., Manara, S. A. A. M., Morenghi, E., & Costanzo, A. (2023). Long-Term Sequential Digital Dermoscopy of Low-Risk Patients May Not Improve Early Diagnosis of Melanoma Compared to Periodical Handheld Dermoscopy. Cancers, 15(4), 1129. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041129