The authors have indicated no significant interest with commercial supporters. D esmoplastic melanoma (DM) is a rare fibrosing variant of cutaneous melanoma with a predilection for sun-damaged skin. The clinical and histopathologic diagnosis is often challenging because of the atypical clinical and histopathologic presentation. A high index of suspicion, adequate biopsy, and expert review of the pathology are critical to ensure accurate diagnosis and management.Laser treatment of pigmented lesions of the face is a commonly performed procedure. Because of the predilection of DM and other variants of melanoma for photodamaged skin, laser treatment of pigmented lesions should be performed prudently. We report a case emphasizing the diagnostic challenge of DM, the pitfalls associated with laser treatment, and the value of histopathologic review.
Case ReportA 73-year-old woman with Fitzpatrick skin type II presented for management of a squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCCIS) of the right cheek. She reported a brown sun spot was treated twice using a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser (type not known) in 2007 with near resolution of the brown pigment. One to two years later, the patient noted firmness in the area, and this was assumed to be a cyst. The lesion continued to increase in size and developed a pinkish hue. In 2010, she presented to a local dermatologist and was referred to a plastic surgeon for biopsy. Outside pathology showed a poorly oriented strip of skin with changes consistent with an actinic keratosis. Given the superficial nature of the biopsy, a second biopsy was recommended. A different dermatologist performed the second biopsy and submitted the tissue to exclude ''morphea BCC or morpheaform basal cell carcinoma.'' A board-certified dermatopathologist reported that biopsy as SCCIS. The patient, selfreferred, presented to our office for further management.On examination, there was an ill-defined 2-to 3-cm pink to erythematous plaque; the induration extended beyond the area of erythema (Figure 1). At the most superior end was brown irregular pigmentation, adjacent scarring from the previous biopsies, and erythema. The dermoscopic images were nonspecific, with irregular blood vessels and scar-like areas from the previous procedures.A dermatopathologist (KJB) internally reviewed the outside biopsies. The initial biopsy showed tangentially sectioned sun-damaged skin with focal basal layer hyperpigmentation. There was no evidence of actinic keratosis in the sections examined. The second biopsy (said to show SCCIS according to the outside report) was read at our institution as DM, 5.3 mm thick, Clark level V, nonulcerated, tumor