Assessment of the optimal interval for and sensitivity of short-term sequential digital dermoscopy monitoring for the diagnosis of melanoma

Archives of Dermatology

Volumn 144, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 502-506

  Altamura, Davide ^a   Avramidis, Michelle ^b   Menzies, Scott W ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF L'AQUILA   (Italy)

^b ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^c University of Sydney   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EPILUMINESCENCE MICROSCOPY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MALIGNANT LENTIGO; MELANOMA; MELANOSIS; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TIME;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CARCINOMA IN SITU; CELL TRANSFORMATION, NEOPLASTIC; DERMOSCOPY; DYSPLASTIC NEVUS SYNDROME; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; HUTCHINSON'S MELANOTIC FRECKLE; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MELANOMA; NEOPLASM INVASIVENESS; ODDS RATIO; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKIN; SKIN NEOPLASMS; SOFTWARE DESIGN;

EID: 42549133717     PISSN: 0003987X     EISSN: 0003987X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/archderm.144.4.502     Document Type: Article

References (12)

1. Kittler H, Guitera P, Riedl E, et al. Identification of clinically featureless incipient melanoma using sequential dermoscopy imaging. Arch Dermatol. 2006;142(9):1113-1119.
2. Haenssle HA, Krueger U, Vente C, et al. Results from an observational trial: digital epiluminescence microscopy follow-up of atypical nevi increases the sensitivity and the chance of success of conventional dermoscopy in detecting melanoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2006;126(5):980-985.
3. Menzies SW, Gutenev A, Avramidis M, Batrac A, McCarthy WH. Short-term digital surface microscopic monitoring of atypical or changing melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(12):1583-1589.
4. Robinson JK, Nickoloff BJ. Digital epiluminescence microscopy monitoring of high-risk patients. Arch Dermatol. 2004;140(1):49-56.
5. Skvara H, Teban L, Fiebiger M, Binder M, Kittler H. Limitations of dermoscopy in the recognition of melanoma. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(2):155-160.
6. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital epiluminescence microscopy: patterns of modifications observed in early melanoma, atypical nevi, and common nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;43(3):467-476.
7. Stolz W, Schiffner R, Pillet L, et al. Improvement of monitoring of melanocytic skin lesions with the use of a computerized acquisition and surveillance unit with a skin surface microscopic television camera. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;35(2, pt 1):202-207.
8. Braun RP, Lemonnier E, Guillod J, et al. Two types of pattern modification detected on the follow-up of benign melanocytic skin lesions by digitized epiluminescence microscopy. Melanoma Res. 1998;8(5):431-437.
9. Bauer J, Blum A, Strohhacker U, Garbe C. Surveillance of patients at high risk for cutaneous malignant melanoma using digital dermoscopy. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152(1):87-92.
10. Malvehy J, Puig S. Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital total-body photography and digital dermoscopy: a two-step method. Clin Dermatol. 2002;20(3):297-304.
11. Schiffner R, Schiffner-Rohe J, Landthaler M, Stolz W. Long-term dermoscopic follow-up of melanocytic naevi: clinical outcome and patient compliance. Br J Dermatol. 2003;149(1):79-86.
12. Menzies SW, Ingvar C, Crotty KA, McCarthy WH. Frequency and morphologic characteristics of invasive melanomas lacking specific surface microscopic features. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(10):1178-1182.