Dermoscopic Evolution of Pediatric Nevi.
Child
Dermoscopy
Nevus
Journal
Annals of dermatology
ISSN: 2005-3894
Titre abrégé: Ann Dermatol
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 8916577
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
28
08
2018
revised:
20
05
2019
accepted:
01
07
2019
entrez:
29
4
2021
pubmed:
1
10
2019
medline:
1
10
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The incidence of pediatric melanoma is very rare. Dermoscopic features help to distinguish pediatric melanoma and common nevi. To study the evolution of dermoscopic findings in benign nevi in childhood through serial observation and photography. We examined 504 melanocytic lesions in 100 patients. From each participant, dermoscopic images of the nevi from 4-year dermoscopic follow-up were obtained, including randomly selected nevi. The most common dermoscopic patterns were homogeneous (193 nevi; 38.3%), globular (92 nevi; 18.3%), and reticular (86 nevi; 17.1%). Dermoscopic pattern changes were detected in 27% of patients aged 2~10 years and in 20% of patients aged 11~16 years. The main pattern changes consisted of the transition from homogeneous to globular-homogeneous (16%), from homogeneous to reticular-homogeneous (12%) and from globular to globular-homogeneous (10%). Although 257 of the 504 nevi (51.0%) have stable duration without size changes, 169 of the 504 nevi (33.5%) were enlarged, and 78 of the 504 nevi (15.5%) had become smaller. These results contrast with the prevailing view that dermoscopic patterns in pediatric nevi are usually characterized by globular patterns and that melanocytic nevi generally undergo a characteristic transition from a globular pattern to a reticular pattern. Fifty one percent of patients did not exhibit a size change. While 33% of patients had symmetrical enlargement, 15% of patients had involution. Therefore, enlargement is a common dermoscopic change in pediatric nevi, and is not a specific sign of pediatric melanoma.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The incidence of pediatric melanoma is very rare. Dermoscopic features help to distinguish pediatric melanoma and common nevi.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To study the evolution of dermoscopic findings in benign nevi in childhood through serial observation and photography.
METHODS
METHODS
We examined 504 melanocytic lesions in 100 patients. From each participant, dermoscopic images of the nevi from 4-year dermoscopic follow-up were obtained, including randomly selected nevi.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most common dermoscopic patterns were homogeneous (193 nevi; 38.3%), globular (92 nevi; 18.3%), and reticular (86 nevi; 17.1%). Dermoscopic pattern changes were detected in 27% of patients aged 2~10 years and in 20% of patients aged 11~16 years. The main pattern changes consisted of the transition from homogeneous to globular-homogeneous (16%), from homogeneous to reticular-homogeneous (12%) and from globular to globular-homogeneous (10%). Although 257 of the 504 nevi (51.0%) have stable duration without size changes, 169 of the 504 nevi (33.5%) were enlarged, and 78 of the 504 nevi (15.5%) had become smaller.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
These results contrast with the prevailing view that dermoscopic patterns in pediatric nevi are usually characterized by globular patterns and that melanocytic nevi generally undergo a characteristic transition from a globular pattern to a reticular pattern. Fifty one percent of patients did not exhibit a size change. While 33% of patients had symmetrical enlargement, 15% of patients had involution. Therefore, enlargement is a common dermoscopic change in pediatric nevi, and is not a specific sign of pediatric melanoma.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33911643
doi: 10.5021/ad.2019.31.5.518
pmc: PMC7992561
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
518-524Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Korean Dermatological Association and The Korean Society for Investigative Dermatology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors have nothing to disclose.
Références
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Sep;43(3):467-76
pubmed: 10954658
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009 Dec;61(6):1001-13
pubmed: 19833408
Arch Dermatol. 2000 Mar;136(3):316-20
pubmed: 10724192
Arch Dermatol. 1988 Jun;124(6):869-71
pubmed: 3377516
Br J Dermatol. 2008 May;158(5):1041-9
pubmed: 18363751
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 May;48(5):679-93
pubmed: 12734496
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jun;68(6):913-25
pubmed: 23395590
Arch Dermatol. 2004 May;140(5):545-51
pubmed: 15148098
J Cutan Pathol. 1994 Aug;21(4):302-11
pubmed: 7798386
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2007 Nov;5(11):985-92
pubmed: 17976139
Br J Dermatol. 2007 Aug;157(2):217-27
pubmed: 17553053
Br J Dermatol. 2006 Feb;154(2):299-304
pubmed: 16433800
Am J Dermatopathol. 1998 Apr;20(2):135-9
pubmed: 9557780