Suscribirse

Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of three dermoscopic algorithmic methods in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic lesions : The importance of light brown structureless areas in differentiating atypical melanocytic nevi from thin melanomas - 12/08/11

Doi : 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.01.014 
Giorgio Annessi, MD a, , Riccardo Bono, MD a, Francesca Sampogna, BD, MPH b, Tullio Faraggiana, MD c, Damiano Abeni, MD, MPH b
a From the Department of Dermatology, Dermoscopy Unit 
b Health Services Research Unit 
c Dermatopathology Unit, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, IRCCS 

Reprint requests: Giorgio Annessi, MD, Dept Dermatology, Istituto Dermopatico dell’Immacolata, Via Monti di Creta 104, 00167, Rome, Italy.

Rome, Italy

Abstract

Background

Over the past decade numerous epiluminescence microscopy (ELM) criteria and algorithmic methods have been developed to improve the diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions.

Objective

Our purpose was to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of 3 algorithmic methods (pattern analysis, ABCD rule of dermoscopy, and the 7-point checklist) on a series of highly atypical melanocytic lesions. We also determined the diagnostic value of distinct ELM structures by evaluating their frequency in these lesions.

Methods

A total of 198 consecutive atypical macular melanocytic lesions were studied. ELM assessment was based on the presence or absence of 23 dermoscopic features. Two ELM-experienced dermatologists classified each lesion as benign or malignant using the pattern analysis, the ABCD rule of dermoscopy, and the 7-point checklist method. After surgical excision, 102 lesions were histologically diagnosed as Clark’s nevi and 96 as thin melanomas (TMs) (mean tumor thickness, 0.3 mm). ELM and histologic diagnoses were then compared to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy as well as positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV, respectively) for TMs of the 3 algorithmic methods. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine which ELM criteria were most strongly associated with TM.

Results

Of the melanocytic lesions studied, 82.3% were correctly diagnosed by using pattern analysis (85.4% sensitivity, 79.4% specificity, 79.6% PPV, and 70.8% diagnostic accuracy), compared with correct diagnosis of 79.3% (84.4% sensitivity, 74.5% specificity, 75.7% PPV, and 67.8% diagnostic accuracy) and 71.2% (78.1% sensitivity, 64.7% specificity, 67.6% PPV, and 57.7% diagnostic accuracy) with the ABCD and the 7-point checklist methods, respectively. The 7-point checklist yielded the highest number of false-negative results (21.8%) with respect to the ABCD rule (15.6%) and pattern analysis (14.6%). Univariate analysis showed that an atypical pigment network, a pigment network with sharp margins, irregular nonuniform brown globules, a nonuniform pigment distribution, homogeneous areas, and light brown structureless areas were the most sensitive and specific ELM features for TM. A backward stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that the criterion with the strongest TM association was light brown structureless areas (odds ratio = 27.9; 95% confidence interval, 8.6-90.9).

Limitations

The presence and value of light brown structureless areas should also be investigated in clinically nonatypical macular melanocytic lesions.

Conclusion

The pattern analysis method showed the highest sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for TM. Light brown structureless areas were both a statistically significant discriminator and the most reliable predictor of TM (PPV = 93.8%, positive likelihood ratio = 16). Therefore the use of this previously underestimated ELM criterion may not only improve diagnostic performance of equivocal macular melanocytic lesions but also significantly decrease the rate of false-negative results obtained with the 7-point checklist method.

El texto completo de este artículo está disponible en PDF.

Abbreviations used : AMN, CI, ELM, NPV, OR, PPV, TM


Esquema


 Funding sources: None.
Conflicts of interest: None declared.


© 2007  American Academy of Dermatology, Inc.. Publicado por Elsevier Masson SAS. Todos los derechos reservados.
Añadir a mi biblioteca Eliminar de mi biblioteca Imprimir
Exportación

    Exportación citas

  • Fichero

  • Contenido

Vol 56 - N° 5

P. 759-767 - mai 2007 Regresar al número
Artículo precedente Artículo precedente
  • 4th International Workshop for the Study of Itch
| Artículo siguiente Artículo siguiente
  • Association between the anatomic distribution of melanoma and sex
  • Lily N. Clark, Daniel B. Shin, Andrea B. Troxel, Shahbaz Khan, Arthur J. Sober, Michael E. Ming

Bienvenido a EM-consulte, la referencia de los profesionales de la salud.
El acceso al texto completo de este artículo requiere una suscripción.

¿Ya suscrito a @@106933@@ revista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Mi cuenta


Declaración CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM se declara a la CNIL, la declaración N º 1286925.

En virtud de la Ley N º 78-17 del 6 de enero de 1978, relativa a las computadoras, archivos y libertades, usted tiene el derecho de oposición (art.26 de la ley), el acceso (art.34 a 38 Ley), y correcta (artículo 36 de la ley) los datos que le conciernen. Por lo tanto, usted puede pedir que se corrija, complementado, clarificado, actualizado o suprimido información sobre usted que son inexactos, incompletos, engañosos, obsoletos o cuya recogida o de conservación o uso está prohibido.
La información personal sobre los visitantes de nuestro sitio, incluyendo su identidad, son confidenciales.
El jefe del sitio en el honor se compromete a respetar la confidencialidad de los requisitos legales aplicables en Francia y no de revelar dicha información a terceros.


Todo el contenido en este sitio: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, sus licenciantes y colaboradores. Se reservan todos los derechos, incluidos los de minería de texto y datos, entrenamiento de IA y tecnologías similares. Para todo el contenido de acceso abierto, se aplican los términos de licencia de Creative Commons.