No abstract

To describe the relevant morphologic features and to create a simple diagnostic method for pigmented basal cell carcinoma (BCC) using in vivo cutaneous surface microscopy (ie, dermoscopy, dermatoscopy, or oil epiluminescence microscopy).Design: Pigmented skin lesions were photographed in vivo using immersion oil (surface microscopy). All pigmented skin lesions were excised and reviewed for histological diagnosis. Photographs of 142 pigmented BCCs, 142 invasive melanomas, and 142 benign pigmented skin lesions were randomly divided into 2 equally sized training and test sets. Images from the training set were scored for 45 surface microscopy features. From this a model was derived and tested on the independent test set.

Limited studies have reported the in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) features of lentigo maligna (LM). A total of 64 RCM features were scored retrospectively and blinded to diagnosis in a consecutive series of RCM sampled, clinically equivocal, macules of the face (n=81 LM, n=203 benign macules (BMs)). In addition to describing RCM diagnostic features for LM (univariate), an algorithm was developed (LM score) to distinguish LM from BM. This comprised two major features each scoring +2 points (nonedged papillae and round large pagetoid cells > 20 microm), and four minor features; three scored +1 point each (three or more atypical cells at the dermoepidermal junction in five 0.5 x 0.5 mm(2) fields, follicular localization of atypical cells, and nucleated cells within the dermal papillae), and one (negative) feature scored -1 point (a broadened honeycomb pattern). A LM score of > or = 2 resulted in a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 76% for the diagnosis of LM (odds ratio (OR) for LM 18.6; 95% confidence interval: 9.3-37.1). The algorithm was equally effective in the diagnosis of amelanotic lesions and showed good interobserver reproducibility (87%). In a test set of 29 LMs and 44 BMs, the OR for LM was 60.7 (confidence interval: 11.9-309) (93% sensitivity, 82% specificity).

Background Evolving dermoscopic terminology motivated us to initiate a new consensus. Objective We sought to establish a dictionary of standardized terms. Methods We reviewed the medical literature, conducted a survey, and convened a discussion among experts. Results Two competitive terminologies exist, a more metaphoric terminology that includes numerous terms and a descriptive terminology based on 5 basic terms. In a survey among members of the International Society of Dermoscopy (IDS) 23.5% (n = 201) participants preferentially use descriptive terminology, 20.1% (n = 172) use metaphoric terminology, and 484 (56.5%) use both. More participants who had been initially trained by metaphoric terminology prefer using descriptive terminology than vice versa (9.7% vs 2.6%, P < .001). Most new terms that were published since the last consensus conference in 2003 were unknown to the majority of the participants. There was uniform consensus that both terminologies are suitable, that metaphoric terms need definitions, that synonyms should be avoided, and that the creation of new metaphoric terms should be discouraged. The expert panel proposed a dictionary of standardized terms taking account of metaphoric and descriptive terms. Limitations A consensus seeks a workable compromise but does not guarantee its implementation. Conclusion The new consensus provides a revised framework of standardized terms to enhance the consistent use of dermoscopic terminology.

No abstract