4.4 Article

Clinical-dermoscopic similarities between atypical nevi and early stage melanoma

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL AND THERAPEUTIC MEDICINE
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

SPANDIDOS PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.3892/etm.2021.10286

Keywords

atypical nevi; melanoma; dermoscopy; histology; early diagnosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Atypical nevi may serve as precursors to melanoma, with studies suggesting a linear progression from typical to atypical nevi. Differentiating between Clark nevi and melanoma can be challenging due to their clinical, dermoscopic, and histological similarities. Dermoscopy is helpful in early melanoma detection, but subjectivity remains an issue that can be addressed with dermoscopic algorithms and molecular biology techniques.
Atypical (Clark) nevi are benign tumors that may be considered precursors of melanoma. Many studies acknowledge a linear progression from typical to atypical nevi that eventually transform into melanoma. It is often challenging to differentiate a Clark nevus from melanoma, especially in its early stages, due to their clinical, dermoscopic, and histological resemblance. Dermoscopy is a powerful tool in early melanoma diagnosis, but it is a subjective method of examination. Therefore, the use of dermoscopic algorithms and checklists can overcome this issue. In the case of a difficult diagnosis, since both dermoscopy and histopathological exam are subjective methods of examination, modern molecular biology techniques can be used to distinguish between benign and malignant tumors. This study aimed to test the accuracy of specific clinical and dermoscopic criteria in order to distinguish between benign and malignant tumors, with a secondary objective to provide an overview of the clinical and dermoscopic features of atypical nevi and melanoma. In the present study, dermoscopic algorithms did not necessarily help distinguish benign and malignant tumors but demonstrated that nevi and melanoma have similar characteristics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available