Background
MC1R polymorphisms interact with CDKN2A mutations modulating melanoma risk and contribute to a less suspicious clinical and dermoscopic appearance of melanomas. Different strategies, including dermoscopic comparative approach and digital monitoring, are used for the melanoma diagnosis in this context.
Objective
To analyse the diagnostic accuracy of the morphologic approach and comparative approach in dermoscopy, and to detect melanoma in familial melanoma (FamMM) patients according to different genetic backgrounds.
Methods
Two independent readers evaluated 415 lesions belonging to 25 FamMM: 26 melanomas (62% in situ, 36% early invasive) and 389 naevi, blinded for dermoscopic and histopathologic diagnosis, following two different steps. First step‐Randomized: all lesions were randomly located in one single folder. Second step‐Comparative approach: the lesions were clustered by patient. Sensitivity, specificity and number needed to excise (NNE) for melanoma diagnosis were calculated for both diagnostic strategies. Sensitivity and specificity were also assessed regarding the genetic background.
Results
The comparative approach showed lower sensitivity compared to the morphologic approach (69.2 and 73.1 vs. 76.9 both readers) but better specificity (95.9 and 95.1 vs. 84.3 and 90.2, respectively). NNE was better in the comparative approach. The readers had more difficulties diagnosing lesions from CDKN2A mutation carriers with red hair colour (RHC) MC1R variants.
Conclusion
The comparative approach can be useful in high‐risk patients to decrease the NNE. Early melanomas in CDKN2A carriers with RHC polymorphisms are more difficult to diagnose even with the comparative approach and benefit from the detection of changes during digital dermoscopy monitoring for early diagnosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.