4.7 Article

Dermoscopy of Actinic Keratosis: Is There a True Differentiation between Non-Pigmented and Pigmented Lesions?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12031063

关键词

skin tumors; dermoscopy; non-pigmented actinic keratosis; pigmented actinic keratosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the reliability of dermoscopic features in differentiating non-pigmented actinic keratosis (NPAK) from pigmented actinic keratosis (PAK). Pigmentation is the strongest dermoscopic predictor for the differentiation between NPAK and PAK.
Dermoscopic features of actinic keratosis (AK) have been widely studied, but there is still little evidence for their diagnostic accuracy. Our study investigates whether established dermoscopic criteria are reliable predictors in differentiating non-pigmented actinic keratosis (NPAK) from pigmented actinic keratosis (PAK). For this purpose, dermoscopic images of 83 clinically diagnosed AK (45 NPAK, 38PAK) were examined, and the sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were assessed. Features with statistical significance were the red pseudo-network (p = 0.02) for NPAK and the pigmented pseudo-network (p < 0.001) with a pigment intensity value even less than 10% for PAK (p = 0.001). Pigmented pseudo-network (Se: 89%, Sp: 77%, PPV: 77%, NPV: 89%) with a pigment intensity value of more than 10% (Se: 90%, Sp: 86%, PPV: 79%, NPV: 93%) had excellent diagnostic accuracy for PAK. Scale and widened follicular openings with yellowish dots surrounded by white circles were equally represented in both variants of AK. Linear wavy vessels and shiny streaks were more prominently observed in NPAK, as were rosettes in PAK, but these results failed to meet statistical significance. The red starburst pattern was near statistical significance for PAK. Therefore, pigmentation is the strongest dermoscopic predictor for the differentiation between NPAK and PAK.

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

4.7
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