Dynamic dermoscopic and reflectance confocal microscopic changes of melanocytic lesions excised during follow up.

BACKGROUND: Digital dermoscopy follow up (DDF) is useful in improving the recognition of melanoma, catching early changes over time, although benign nevi can also show changes. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) improves accuracy in diagnosing melanoma and decreases the number of unnecessary resections. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate dynamic dermoscopic and RCM changes during follow up of equivocal melanocytic lesions and assess the impact of adjunctive RCM to DDF for melanoma diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter study of extrafacial atypical melanocytic lesions excised during follow up was performed. Morphologic changes were evaluated, comparing dermoscopy and RCM baseline and follow-up images. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven atypical melanocytic lesions were studied, including 14 melanomas and 123 benign nevi. Significantly greater changes in DDF of atypical network, regression, atypical streaks, and asymmetrical growth as well as in dynamic RCM of atypical cells and dermal-epidermal junction disarray were noted in melanomas. With adjunctive dynamic RCM and major changes at DDF, sensitivity reached 100%, with 40.6% specificity. LIMITATIONS: Selected series of difficult to recognize lesions, with both DDF and dynamic RCM images. CONCLUSION: Adjunctive dynamic RCM improves early melanoma recognition sensitivity.

Photodynamic therapy for superficial basal cell carcinomas: Clinical features of partial responses and recurrences.

BACKGROUND: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is one of the most common skin cancers. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a first line therapy option for superficial BCCs, providing good response and low side effects. The aim of current study is to evaluate the clinicopathological features associated with partial responses or recurrences of BCCs treated with one cycle-PDT (two sessions, one week apart). METHODS: Superficial BCCs treated with PDT between 2016 and 2019 were analyzed. At the 6-month follow-up visit, BCCs were subdivided in "high clearance" or "partial response", based on clinical and/or dermoscopic examination. "High clearance" lesions underwent 24-month follow-up visit and were assigned to "sustained clearance" or "recurrence" groups. Information about age, sex, site, size of lesions, skin biopsy and multiple lesions were collected and the association with the outcomes were estimated with multivariable logistic models. RESULTS: 234 superficial BCCs from 216 patients were analyzed. At the 6-month follow-up visit, 171 out of 234 BCCs (73%) presented a "high clearance", while 63 lesions (27%) showed a "partial response". 28 out of 171 high clearance BCCs (16%) presented a recurrence within 24 months. When "partial response" is compared with the "high clearance" or "sustained clearance" group, a significant difference in mean superficial size of lesions is detected, with higher values in "partial response". Head and neck BCCs have a double risk of recurrence within 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: PDT is a good therapeutic option for superficial BCCs, even though BCCs of head and neck have a higher risk of recurrences and larger BCCs could need a supplementary treatment.

Drug-Induced Photosensitivity: Clinical Types of Phototoxicity and Photoallergy and Pathogenetic Mechanisms.

Drug-induced photosensitivity (DIP) is a common cutaneous adverse drug reaction, resulting from the interaction of ultraviolet radiations, mostly ultraviolet A, with drugs. DIP includes phototoxicity and photoallergy. A phototoxic reaction is obtained when topical and systemic drugs or their metabolites absorb light inducing a direct cellular damage, while a photoallergic reaction takes place when the interaction between drugs and ultraviolet radiations causes an immune cutaneous response. Clinically, phototoxicity is immediate and appears as an exaggerated sunburn, whereas photoallergy is a delayed eczematous reaction. DIP may show several clinical subtypes. In this mini-review we report the pathogenetic mechanisms and causative drugs of DIP. We offer a detailed description of DIP clinical features in its classical and unusual subtypes, such as hyperpigmentation/dyschromia, pseudoporphyria, photo-onycolysis, eruptive teleangiectasia, pellagra-like reaction, lichenoid reaction, photodistributed erythema multiforme and subacute/chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus. We described how physicians may early recognize and manage DIP, including diagnostic tests to rule out similar conditions. We made suggestions on how to improve sun exposure behaviors of patients at risk of DIP by means of an aware use of sunscreens, protective clothing and recent technologic tools. We highlighted the lack of sun safety programs addressed to patients at risk of DIP, who need a formal education about their condition.