Next Article in Journal
Pharmacological Interventions in Paraphilic Disorders: Systematic Review and Insights
Previous Article in Journal
The Importance of Vaccination, Variants and Time Point of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Pregnancy for Stillbirth and Preterm Birth Risk: An Analysis of the CRONOS Register Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Use of Dermoscopy among Greek Dermatologists in Everyday Clinical Practice: A National Questionnaire-Based Study
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Diagnosis of Skin Cancer: From the Researcher Bench to the Patient’s Bedside

1
Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Dermatooncology, Semmelweis University, H-1085 Budapest, Hungary
2
Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Oncodermatology, Clinical Center, Medical School, University of Pécs, H-7632 Pécs, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(6), 1523; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061523
Submission received: 2 March 2024 / Accepted: 4 March 2024 / Published: 7 March 2024
The overall incidence and prevalence of skin cancer have shown a significant increase worldwide in the last several decades. Overall, skin cancer constitutes an important global public health issue [1]. Non-melanoma skin cancers, including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC), are the most common malignancies in fair-skinned populations, leading to significant morbidity. In contrast, while its prevalence is much lower, melanoma accounts for most skin cancer-related deaths [2,3]. It was estimated that in 2020, there were a total of 325,000 new melanoma cases, and 57,000 deaths occurred due to melanoma. If these rates continue, there will be a projected rise in melanoma cases by 2040 [4]. This Special Issue, encompassing 12 publications, focuses on different aspects of the management of skin cancer, from basic science to translational and clinical studies.
Using novel biomarkers could lead to improving the diagnostics and follow-up of melanoma patients [5,6]. In the study of Várvölgyi et al., it was revealed that plasma osteopontin levels displayed a significant association with the probability of metastatic melanoma, which was similar to serum S100B levels. Moreover, this publication underlines that combining different biomarkers shows great clinical potential [7]. The role of aquaporin transmembrane proteins is intensively investigated in cancer biology [8,9]. In Camillo et al.’s study, the expression of aquaporin 1, aquaporin 8, and aquaporin 9 correlated with improved prognosis and clinical outcomes among melanoma patients [10].
Dermoscopy is one of the most important diagnostic modalities for evaluating skin cancer [11,12,13]. Sgouros et al.’s study highlights that dermoscopy has become an integral part of standard clinical practice in dermatology, based on a questionnaire completed by 366 Greek dermatologists. Their findings emphasize the need for structured training in the field of dermoscopy to promote its effective use in routine practice [14].
Innovative skin imaging techniques have also emerged in recent years, with diverse applications in skin cancer diagnostics [15,16,17,18,19]. Raman spectroscopy has a wide range of applications, such as assessing SCC, BCC, and melanoma, as Delrue et al.’s study extensively discussed. [20]. In Bozsányi et al.’s publication, a novel imaging technique, optically guided high-frequency ultrasound, has shown high sensitivity and specificity in the differentiation of high-risk BCC subtypes; thus, this technique potentially could aid clinical decision making regarding the selection of the appropriate treatment modality [21].
Rare types of non-melanoma skin cancer, such as sebaceous carcinoma, can pose a significant diagnostic challenge [22,23,24]. Cazzato et al.’s study revealed that Preferentially expressed Antigen in Melanoma (PRAME) can be useful for the subclassification of different grades of sebaceous carcinoma [25].
In addition to advancing diagnostic techniques, diverse novel treatment options have also emerged for more optimal management of skin cancer [26,27]. Ruiz-Villaverde et al. conducted a real-world analysis using the Hedgehog signaling pathway inhibitor, sonidegib, in locally advanced basal cell carcinoma. They reported significant efficacy and an acceptable safety profile [28]. Russo et al.’s publication describes a specialized algorithm for lower lip reconstruction following skin cancer excision [29]. Lázár et al.’s study emphasizes the crucial role of surgical treatment in large, locally advanced melanomas to achieve long-term disease control in addition to systemic therapy [30].
In a case report, a tattoo-associated cutaneous reaction was described in a patient receiving B-RAF and MEK inhibitor dabrafenib and trametinib therapy. This reaction could effectively be treated with topical corticosteroids, resulting in complete resolution and highlighting that suspending systemic treatment was unnecessary [31].
Special skin cancer patient populations, such as solid organ transplant recipients with cutaneous SCC, may need a more personalized approach to their management [32]. The retrospective cohort study by Salido-Vallejo et al. observed that the prognosis of cutaneous SCC is more closely related to other tumor-dependent risk factors than the immunocompromised state [33]. The retrospective analysis by Kuzmanovszki et al. revealed that elderly, polymorbid, and immunocompromised patients with cutaneous SCC can be effectively treated with anti-PD1 inhibitor cemiplimab [34].
As the Guest Editors of this Special Issue, we thank all authors for their excellent contributions. Finally, we thank the reviewers for their valuable comments and insightful feedback during the revisions.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation: P.H., Z.L., A.B. and N.K.; writing—review and editing: P.H., Z.L., A.B. and N.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, W.; Zeng, W.; Jiang, A.; He, Z.; Shen, X.; Dong, X.; Feng, J.; Lu, H. Global, regional and national incidence, mortality and disability-adjusted life-years of skin cancers and trend analysis from 1990 to 2019: An analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 4905–4922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Leiter, U.; Keim, U.; Garbe, C. Epidemiology of Skin Cancer: Update 2019. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2020, 1268, 123–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Barton, V.; Armeson, K.; Hampras, S.; Ferris, L.K.; Visvanathan, K.; Rollison, D.; Alberg, A.J. Nonmelanoma skin cancer and risk of all-cause and cancer-related mortality: A systematic review. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2017, 309, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Arnold, M.; Singh, D.; Laversanne, M.; Vignat, J.; Vaccarella, S.; Meheus, F.; Cust, A.E.; de Vries, E.; Whiteman, D.C.; Bray, F. Global Burden of Cutaneous Melanoma in 2020 and Projections to 2040. JAMA Dermatol. 2022, 158, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nwafor, J.N.; Torere, B.E.; Agu, E.; Kadiku, L.; Ogunyemi, T.; Akinsanya, P.A.; Araromi, O.O.; Akahara, D.E.; Okobi, O.E. The Role of Biomarkers in the Diagnosis and Prognosis of Different Stages of Melanoma. Cureus 2023, 15, e38693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Deacon, D.C.; Smith, E.A.; Judson-Torres, R.L. Molecular Biomarkers for Melanoma Screening, Diagnosis and Prognosis: Current State and Future Prospects. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 642380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Várvölgyi, T.; Janka, E.A.; Szász, I.; Koroknai, V.; Toka-Farkas, T.; Szabó, I.L.; Ványai, B.; Szegedi, A.; Emri, G.; Balázs, M. Combining Biomarkers for the Diagnosis of Metastatic Melanoma. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Moon, C.S.; Moon, D.; Kang, S.K. Aquaporins in Cancer Biology. Front. Oncol. 2022, 12, 782829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, J.; Feng, L.; Zhu, Z.; Zheng, M.; Wang, D.; Chen, Z.; Sun, H. Aquaporins as diagnostic and therapeutic targets in cancer: How far we are? J. Transl. Med. 2015, 13, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Camillo, L.; Esposto, E.; Gironi, L.C.; Airoldi, C.; Alhamed, S.A.; Boldorini, R.L.; Zavattaro, E.; Savoia, P. Aquaporin 1, Aquaporin 8, and Aquaporin 9 Expressions in Malignant Melanoma: A Possible Correlation with Prognosis and Clinical Outcome. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yélamos, O.; Braun, R.P.; Liopyris, K.; Wolner, Z.J.; Kerl, K.; Gerami, P.; Marghoob, A.A. Usefulness of dermoscopy to improve the clinical and histopathologic diagnosis of skin cancers. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2019, 80, 365–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kato, J.; Horimoto, K.; Sato, S.; Minowa, T.; Uhara, H. Dermoscopy of Melanoma and Non-melanoma Skin Cancers. Front. Med. 2019, 6, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cantisani, C.; Ambrosio, L.; Cucchi, C.; Meznerics, F.A.; Kiss, N.; Bánvölgyi, A.; Rega, F.; Grignaffini, F.; Barbuto, F.; Frezza, F.; et al. Melanoma Detection by Non-Specialists: An Untapped Potential for Triage? Diagnostics 2022, 12, 2821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sgouros, D.; Routsi, E.; Evangelodimou, A.; Lallas, A.; Apalla, Z.; Arvanitis, D.K.; Pappa, G.; Lazaridou, E.; Fotiadou, C.; Evangelou, G.; et al. Use of Dermoscopy among Greek Dermatologists in Everyday Clinical Practice: A National Questionnaire-Based Study. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Giuffrida, R.; Conforti, C.; Di Meo, N.; Deinlein, T.; Guida, S.; Zalaudek, I. Use of noninvasive imaging in the management of skin cancer. Curr. Opin. Oncol. 2020, 32, 98–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Csány, G.; Gergely, L.H.; Kiss, N.; Szalai, K.; Lőrincz, K.; Strobel, L.; Csabai, D.; Hegedüs, I.; Marosán-Vilimszky, P.; Füzesi, K.; et al. Preliminary Clinical Experience with a Novel Optical-Ultrasound Imaging Device on Various Skin Lesions. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Schuh, S.; Ruini, C.; Perwein, M.K.E.; Daxenberger, F.; Gust, C.; Sattler, E.C.; Welzel, J. Line-Field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography: A New Tool for the Differentiation between Nevi and Melanomas? Cancers 2022, 14, 1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kiss, N.; Haluszka, D.; Lőrincz, K.; Gyöngyösi, N.; Bozsányi, S.; Bánvölgyi, A.; Szipőcs, R.; Wikonkál, N. Quantitative Analysis on Ex Vivo Nonlinear Microscopy Images of Basal Cell Carcinoma Samples in Comparison to Healthy Skin. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 2019, 25, 1015–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Shahriari, N.; Grant-Kels, J.M.; Rabinovitz, H.; Oliviero, M.; Scope, A. Reflectance confocal microscopy: Principles, basic terminology, clinical indications, limitations, and practical considerations. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol. 2021, 84, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Delrue, C.; Speeckaert, R.; Oyaert, M.; De Bruyne, S.; Speeckaert, M.M. From Vibrations to Visions: Raman Spectroscopy’s Impact on Skin Cancer Diagnostics. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Bozsányi, S.; Boostani, M.; Farkas, K.; Hamilton-Meikle, P.; Varga, N.N.; Szabó, B.; Vasanits, F.; Kuroli, E.; Meznerics, F.A.; Lőrincz, K.; et al. Optically Guided High-Frequency Ultrasound to Differentiate High-Risk Basal Cell Carcinoma Subtypes: A Single-Centre Prospective Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 6910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dixon, A. Rare skin cancers in general practice. Aust. Fam. Physician 2007, 36, 141–143. [Google Scholar]
  23. Knackstedt, T.; Samie, F.H. Sebaceous Carcinoma: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2017, 18, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Dowell-Esquivel, C.; Lee, R.; DiCaprio, R.C., 3rd; Nouri, K. Sebaceous carcinoma: An updated review of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment options. Arch. Dermatol. Res. 2023, 316, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Cazzato, G.; Colagrande, A.; Ingravallo, G.; Lettini, T.; Filoni, A.; Ambrogio, F.; Bonamonte, D.; Dellino, M.; Lupo, C.; Casatta, N.; et al. PRAME Immuno-Expression in Cutaneous Sebaceous Carcinoma: A Single Institutional Experience. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 6936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Modrakowska, P.; Balik, K.; Maj, M.; Bajek, A. Novel therapies for advanced skin carcinomas. Postep. Dermatol. Alergol. 2020, 37, 660–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sood, S.; Jayachandiran, R.; Pandey, S. Current Advancements and Novel Strategies in the Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma. Integr. Cancer Ther. 2021, 20, 1534735421990078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ruiz-Villaverde, R.; Herrera-Acosta, E.; Ruiz de Casas, A.; Villegas-Romero, I.M.; Moreno-Suárez, F.G.; Vílchez-Márquez, F.; Galán-Gutiérrez, M.; Vázquez-Bayo, M.C.; Cases-Mérida, S.; Almazán-Fernández, F.M. Multicenter Retrospective Andalusian Study of the Use of Sonidegib for the Treatment of Local Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma in Real Clinical Practice. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Russo, R.; Pentangelo, P.; Ceccaroni, A.; Losco, L.; Alfano, C. Lower Lip Reconstruction after Skin Cancer Excision: A Tailored Algorithm for Elderly Patients. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lázár, P.; Molnár, E.T.; Bende, B.; Vass, G.; Baltás, E.; Paczona, R.; Varga, E.; Piffkó, J.; Kemény, L.; Oláh, J.; et al. Challenges in the Complex Management of Neglected Cutaneous Melanomas in the Head and Neck Area: A Single Center Experience. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Baratta, S.; Cazzato, G.; Foti, C.; Ingravallo, G.; Lospalluti, L.; Laface, C.; Filotico, R.; Ambrogio, F. Tattoo-Associated Skin Reaction in a Melanoma Patient Receiving B-RAF and MEK Inhibitors: A Case Report with an Emphasis on Etiopathogenic and Histological Features. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Granata, S.; Tessari, G.; Stallone, G.; Zaza, G. Skin cancer in solid organ transplant recipients: Still an open problem. Front. Med. 2023, 10, 1189680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Salido-Vallejo, R.; Escribano-Castillo, L.; Antoñanzas, J.; Roldán-Córdoba, C.; Velez, A.; Aguado-Gil, L. Prognostic Outcomes of Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kuzmanovszki, D.; Kiss, N.; Tóth, B.; Tóth, V.; Szakonyi, J.; Lőrincz, K.; Hársing, J.; Kuroli, E.; Imrédi, E.; Kerner, T.; et al. Real-World Experience with Cemiplimab Treatment for Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma-A Retrospective Single-Center Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Holló, P.; Lengyel, Z.; Bánvölgyi, A.; Kiss, N. Diagnosis of Skin Cancer: From the Researcher Bench to the Patient’s Bedside. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061523

AMA Style

Holló P, Lengyel Z, Bánvölgyi A, Kiss N. Diagnosis of Skin Cancer: From the Researcher Bench to the Patient’s Bedside. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(6):1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061523

Chicago/Turabian Style

Holló, Péter, Zsuzsanna Lengyel, András Bánvölgyi, and Norbert Kiss. 2024. "Diagnosis of Skin Cancer: From the Researcher Bench to the Patient’s Bedside" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 6: 1523. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13061523

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop