4.6 Article

Evaluation of dermatoscopic criteria for early detection of squamous cell carcinoma arising on an actinic keratosis

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.111

关键词

actinic keratosis; dermatoscopy; dermoscopy; skin cancer; squamous cell carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and dermatoscopic criteria that could suggest early invasion and serve as potent predictors to discriminate early SCC from AK. The main positive dermatoscopic predictors of early SCC were dotted/glomerular vessels, hairpin vessels, and white structureless areas, whereas background erythema represented a negative SCC predictor.
Background: Advanced squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) can be discriminated easily from actinic keratosis (AK) based on clinical and dermatoscopic features. However, at the initial stage of dermal invasion, SCC might still be clinically flat and discrimination from AK remains challenging, even with the addition of dermatoscopy. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical and dermatoscopic criteria that could suggest early invasion and serve as potent predictors to discriminate early SCC from AK. Methods: Clinical and dermatoscopic images of histopathologically diagnosed AKs and early SCCs were evaluated for the presence of predefined criteria by 3 independent investigators. Results: A total of 50 early SCCs and 45 AKs were included. The main positive dermatoscopic predictors of early SCC were dotted/glomerular vessels (odds ratio [OR] 3.83), hairpin vessels (OR 12.12), and white structureless areas (OR 3.58), whereas background erythema represented a negative SCC predictor (OR 0.22). Limitations: The retrospective evaluation of images. Moreover, the differential diagnosis included in the study is restricted between AK and early SCC. Conclusions: We identified potent predictors for the discrimination of AK and early SCC that may better guide management decisions in everyday clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据