This study provides new insights into the dermoscopic variability in common facial inflammatory dermatoses.

No abstract

Summary Background Over the last few years, several articles on dermoscopy of non‐neoplastic dermatoses have been published, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. Objectives We aimed to standardize the dermoscopic terminology and identify basic parameters to evaluate in non‐neoplastic dermatoses through an expert consensus. Methods The modified Delphi method was followed, with two phases: (i) identification of a list of possible items based on a systematic literature review and (ii) selection of parameters by a panel of experts through a three‐step iterative procedure (blinded e‐mail interaction in rounds 1 and 3 and a face‐to‐face meeting in round 2). Initial panellists were recruited via e‐mail from all over the world based on their expertise on dermoscopy of non‐neoplastic dermatoses. Results Twenty‐four international experts took part in all rounds of the consensus and 13 further international participants were also involved in round 2. Five standardized basic parameters were identified: (i) vessels (including morphology and distribution); (ii) scales (including colour and distribution); (iii) follicular findings; (iv) ‘other structures’ (including colour and morphology); and (v) ‘specific clues’. For each of them, possible variables were selected, with a total of 31 different subitems reaching agreement at the end of the consensus (all of the 29 proposed initially plus two more added in the course of the consensus procedure). Conclusions This expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This tool, if adopted by clinicians and researchers in this field, is likely to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology. What's already known about this topic? Over the last few years, several papers have been published attempting to describe the dermoscopic features of non‐neoplastic dermatoses, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. What does this study add? The present expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This consensus should enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology.

Following the first descriptions of the dermatoscopic pattern of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) that go back to the very early years of dermatoscopy, the list of dermatoscopic criteria associated with BCC has been several times updated and renewed. Up to date, dermatoscopy has been shown to enhance BCC detection, by facilitating its discrimination from other skin tumors and inflammatory skin diseases. Furthermore, upcoming evidence suggests that the method is also useful for the management of the tumor, since it provides valuable information about the histopathologic subtype, the presence of clinically undetectable pigmentation, the expansion of the tumor beyond clinically visible margins and the response to non-ablative treatments. In the current article, we provide a summary of the traditional and latest knowledge on the value of dermatoscopy for the diagnosis and management of BCC.

No abstract

No abstract

SummaryBackground Nodular lesions pose diagnostic challenges because nodular melanoma may simulate all kinds of melanocytic and nonmelanocytic lesions. Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a novel technique that allows visualization of the skin at nearly histological resolution although limited laser depth penetration hampers visualization of the deep dermis. Objectives We sought to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of RCM was comparable to histopathology for the diagnosis of nodular lesions, and to identify possible limitations of this technique. Methods We retrospectively evaluated 140 nodules by means of RCM while blinded from the histopathological diagnosis. At the end of the study the patient codes were broken and the evaluations were matched with histopathological diagnosis before performing statistical analysis. Results The study consisted of 140 nodular lesions (23 'pure' nodular melanomas, nine melanoma metastases, 28 BCCs, six invasive SCCs, 32 naevi, 14 seborrhoeic keratoses, 17 dermatofibromas, five vascular lesions and six other lesions). RCM correctly diagnosed 121 of 140 lesions (86Á4%); eight of 140 (5Á7%) lesions revealed discordance between histopathology and confocal microscopy. Eight of the 140 (5Á7%) cases were not evaluable by means of RCM due to the presence of ulceration or hyperkeratosis and three cases showed a nonspecific pattern. Interestingly, confocal microscopy reached a 96Á5% sensitivity and 94Á1% specificity (area under curve 0Á970) (95% CI 0Á924-1Á015) (P < 0Á001) for the diagnosis of melanoma. Conclusions The study is retrospective and lesions were not included on the basis of their diagnostic difficulty. Despite the limited laser depth penetration of RCM, this imaging tool represents an effective instrument in diagnosing nodular lesions; however, for fully ulcerated lesions or when a marked hyperkeratosis is present, biopsy should always be performed. Prospective studies on difficult-todiagnose nodules should be performed to analyse further the pros and cons of RCM in skin cancer diagnosis.

No abstract