Dermoscopy of Gottron's papules and other inflammatory dermatoses involving the dorsa of the hands.

BACKGROUND: Several inflammatory dermatoses, including dermatomyositis (DM), may present as erythematous papules or plaques on the dorsal aspects of the hands over the joints. Limited skin involvement in these entities may pose a diagnostic challenge. (Video)dermoscopy is being utilized more frequently to aid in the differential diagnosis of inflammatory skin conditions. OBJECTIVE: To describe the dermoscopic findings in Gottron's papules and compare them with dermoscopic features of other dermatoses involving the dorsal aspects of the hands. METHODS: Videodermoscopic images from patients presenting with erythematous papules or plaques on the dorsal surface of the hands were retrospectively analysed for the presence of standardized dermoscopic parameters. RESULTS: Dermoscopic images from patients with DM (n = 12), psoriasis (n = 19), chronic dermatitis (n = 16), mycosis fungoides (n = 7), lichen planus (n = 5) and pityriasis rubra pilaris (n = 3) were included. Gottron's papules were characterized by pleomorphic vessels (dotted vessels accompanied by thick or thin linear vessels with branches or linear curved vessels) in 66.7% of cases, arranged in an unspecified pattern (91.7%), and accompanied by white or pink structureless areas (75.0%). Psoriatic plaques were characterized by dotted vessels arranged in a uniform pattern (94.7%). Vessels arranged in a ring pattern were nearly exclusively observed in psoriasis, while yellow structureless areas and erosions were more frequently present in chronic dermatitis. White lines, corresponding to Wickham striae, were specific for lichen planus. CONCLUSIONS: Videodermoscopy might be of value in differentiating Gottron's papules from other dermatoses involving dorsa of the hands.

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

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.

Non-invasive diagnosis of pink basal cell carcinoma: how much can we rely on dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy?

BACKGROUND: Non-pigmented 'pink' cutaneous lesions in differential diagnosis with basal cell carcinoma may present a challenge for clinicians. Our objective was to determine the potential improvement of diagnostic accuracy using combined dermoscopy-reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) image evaluation. METHODS: Two hundred and sixty clinically equivocal 'pink' cutaneous lesions were evaluated retrospectively. Reader accuracy was tested with dermoscopy images only vs. RCM and combined dermoscopy-RCM images. RESULTS: Out of 260 equivocal 'pink' cutaneous lesions, there were 114 basal cell carcinomas within a total of 140 malignancies that included 12 melanomas, 13 squamous cell carcinomas, and 1 other malignancy type. Dermoscopy only evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 85.1% and specificity of 92.4%, resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) of 89.8%, with 1 of 12 melanomas misdiagnosed. RCM evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 85.1% and specificity of 93.8%, resulting in a PPV of 91.5%, with no melanomas misdiagnosed. Combined dermoscopy-RCM evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 77.2% and specificity of 96.6%, resulting in a PPV of 94.6%. CONCLUSION: The combination of dermoscopy-RCM evaluation significantly improves the accuracy and safety threshold in equivocal 'pink' cutaneous lesions in the differential diagnosis of basal cell carcinoma.

Improving diagnostic sensitivity of combined dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy imaging through double reader concordance evaluation in telemedicine settings: A retrospective study of 1000 equivocal cases.

BACKGROUND: Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is an imaging device that permits non-invasive visualization of cellular morphology and has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopically equivocal cutaneous lesions. The application of double reader concordance evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets in retrospective settings and its potential application to telemedicine evaluation has not been tested in a large study population. OBJECTIVE: To improve diagnostic sensitivity of RCM image diagnosis using a double reader concordance evaluation approach; to reduce mismanagement of equivocal cutaneous lesions in retrospective consultation and telemedicine settings. METHODS: 1000 combined dermoscopy-RCM image sets were evaluated in blind by 10 readers with advanced training and internship in dermoscopy and RCM evaluation. We compared sensitivity and specificity of single reader evaluation versus double reader concordance evaluation as well as the effect of diagnostic confidence on lesion management in a retrospective setting. RESULTS: Single reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 95.2% and specificity of 76.3%, with misdiagnosis of 8 melanomas, 4 basal cell carcinomas and 2 squamous cell carcinomas. Combined double reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 98.3% and specificity of 65.5%, with misdiagnosis of 1 in-situ melanoma and 2 basal cell carcinomas. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets of cutaneous lesions by single reader evaluation in retrospective settings is limited by sensitivity levels that may result in potential mismanagement of malignant lesions. Double reader blind concordance evaluation may improve the sensitivity of diagnosis and management safety. The use of a second check can be implemented in telemedicine settings where expert consultation and second opinions may be required.

Improving Diagnostic Accuracy of Dermoscopically Equivocal Pink Cutaneous Lesions with Reflectance Confocal Microscopy in Telemedicine Settings: Double Reader Concordance Evaluation of 316 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Solitary pink lesions in differential diagnosis with hypopigmented/amelanotic melanoma present a diagnostic challenge in daily practice and are regularly referred for second expert opinion. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) has been shown to improve diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopically equivocal pink lesions. No studies have been performed to evaluate the effect of adding a second expert reader and automatic removal of lesions with discordant management recommendations and its potential effect on diagnostic sensitivity and final management of these lesions in retrospective or telemedicine settings. OBJECTIVE: To improve diagnostic accuracy and reduce potential mismanagement of dermoscopically equivocal pink cutaneous lesions by implementing double reader concordance evaluation of RCM images. METHODS: 316 dermoscopically equivocal pink lesions with dermoscopy-RCM image sets were evaluated retrospectively. Accuracy of three readers was evaluated by single reader evaluation of dermoscopy only and dermoscopy-RCM image sets and finally by double reader evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets. Lesions with discordant diagnosis between two readers were automatically recommended for excision. RESULTS: Dermoscopy only evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 95.9% and specificity of 33.6%, with 1 of 12 amelanotic melanomas mismanaged. Dermoscopy-RCM image set single reader evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 93.9% and overall specificity of 54.2%, with 1 of 12 melanomas mismanaged. Dermoscopy-RCM image set double reader concordance evaluation resulted in an overall sensitivity of 98.3% and specificity of 42.7%, with no amelanotic melanoma mismanagement. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of dermoscopy-RCM image sets of equivocal pink lesions by a single reader in telemedicine settings is limited by the potential for misdiagnosis of dangerous malignant lesions. Double reader concordance evaluation with automatic referral of lesions for removal in the case of discordant diagnosis improves the diagnostic sensitivity in this subset of lesions and reduce potential misdiagnosis in settings where a second expert opinion may be employed.