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.

Dermoscopy vs. reflectance confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of lentigo maligna / Cinotti, E.; Labeille, B.; Debarbieux, S.; Carrera, C.; Lacarrubba, F.; Witkowski, A. M.; Moscarella, E.; Arzberger, E.; Kittler, H.; Bahadoran, P.; Gonzalez, S.; Guitera, P.; Agozzino, M.; Farnetani, F.; Hofmann-Wellenhof, R.; Ardigò, M.; Rubegni, P.; Tognetti, L.; Ludzik, J.; Zalaudek, I.; Argenziano, G.; Longo, C.; Ribero, S.; Malvehy, J.; Pellacani, G.; Cambazard, F.; Perrot, J. L.. - In: JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY AND VENEREOLOGY. - ISSN 0926-9959. - (2018), pp. 1284-1291. [10.1111/jdv.14791]

Dermoscopy vs. reflectance confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of lentigo maligna

Witkowski, A. M.;Moscarella, E.;Farnetani, F.;Argenziano, G.;Longo, C.;Pellacani, G.;
2018

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.
2018
6-feb-2018
1284
1291
Dermoscopy vs. reflectance confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of lentigo maligna / Cinotti, E.; Labeille, B.; Debarbieux, S.; Carrera, C.; Lacarrubba, F.; Witkowski, A. M.; Moscarella, E.; Arzberger, E.; Kittler, H.; Bahadoran, P.; Gonzalez, S.; Guitera, P.; Agozzino, M.; Farnetani, F.; Hofmann-Wellenhof, R.; Ardigò, M.; Rubegni, P.; Tognetti, L.; Ludzik, J.; Zalaudek, I.; Argenziano, G.; Longo, C.; Ribero, S.; Malvehy, J.; Pellacani, G.; Cambazard, F.; Perrot, J. L.. - In: JOURNAL OF THE EUROPEAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY AND VENEREOLOGY. - ISSN 0926-9959. - (2018), pp. 1284-1291. [10.1111/jdv.14791]
Cinotti, E.; Labeille, B.; Debarbieux, S.; Carrera, C.; Lacarrubba, F.; Witkowski, A. M.; Moscarella, E.; Arzberger, E.; Kittler, H.; Bahadoran, P.; Gonzalez, S.; Guitera, P.; Agozzino, M.; Farnetani, F.; Hofmann-Wellenhof, R.; Ardigò, M.; Rubegni, P.; Tognetti, L.; Ludzik, J.; Zalaudek, I.; Argenziano, G.; Longo, C.; Ribero, S.; Malvehy, J.; Pellacani, G.; Cambazard, F.; Perrot, J. L.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
jdv.14791.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipologia: Versione pubblicata dall'editore
Dimensione 5.72 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
5.72 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
POST_PRINT_cinotti2018.pdf

Open access

Tipologia: Versione dell'autore revisionata e accettata per la pubblicazione
Dimensione 457.38 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
457.38 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Licenza Creative Commons
I metadati presenti in IRIS UNIMORE sono rilasciati con licenza Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal, mentre i file delle pubblicazioni sono rilasciati con licenza Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale (CC BY 4.0), salvo diversa indicazione.
In caso di violazione di copyright, contattare Supporto Iris

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11380/1153431
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 18
  • Scopus 55
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 51
social impact