Human surface anatomy terminology for dermatology: a Delphi consensus from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration

BackgroundThere is no internationally vetted set of anatomic terms to describe human surface anatomy.ObjectiveTo establish expert consensus on a standardized set of terms that describe clinically relevant human surface anatomy.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi consensus on surface anatomy terminology between July 2017 and July 2019. The initial survey included 385 anatomic terms, organized in seven levels of hierarchy. If agreement exceeded the 75% established threshold, the term was considered - accepted- and included in the final list. Terms added by the participants were passed on to the next round of consensus. Terms with <75% agreement were included in subsequent surveys along with alternative terms proposed by participants until agreement was reached on all terms.ResultsThe Delphi included 21 participants. We found consensus (- ¥75% agreement) on 361/385 (93.8%) terms and eliminated one term in the first round. Of 49 new terms suggested by participants, 45 were added via consensus. To adjust for a recently published International Classification of Diseases- Surface Topography list of terms, a third survey including 111 discrepant terms was sent to participants. Finally, a total of 513 terms reached agreement via the Delphi method.ConclusionsWe have established a set of 513 clinically relevant terms for denoting human surface anatomy, towards the use of standardized terminology in dermatologic documentation.Linked Commentary: R.J.G. Chalmers. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2020; 34: 2456- 2457. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.16978.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/1/jdv16855_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/2/jdv16855-sup-0001-FigS1-S3.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163915/3/jdv16855.pd

Incidence of New Primary Cutaneous Melanoma in Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Single-Center Cohort Study

Importance: The development of new primary cutaneous melanoma (CM) after starting immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is poorly characterized. Objective: To determine the incidence of new CM in patients treated with ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab for metastatic melanoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study using an institutional database to identify patients diagnosed with melanoma at a tertiary care cancer hospital in New York, New York. Exposures: Ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab treatment for metastatic melanoma. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were the incidence proportion, the incidence rate, and the 5-year cause-specific cumulative risk. Results: A total of 2251 patients were included in the study; mean (SD) age at the time of ICI start was 62.8 (14.4) years. The majority were male (63.8%, n = 1437), White (92.7%, n = 2086), and non-Hispanic (92.1%, n = 2073). Forty-two of 2251 patients who received ipilimumab, nivolumab, and/or pembrolizumab were diagnosed with 48 new CMs at a median (range) of 397.5 (39-2409) days after ICI initiation. The median age of affected patients at the time of ICI first dose was 66.5 years. The majority were male (66.7%, n = 28), White (92.9%, n = 39), and non-Hispanic (100.0%, n = 42). There were no differences in age, sex, race, and ethnicity among patients who did and did not develop a new CM. Patients who developed a new CM were more likely to have a family history of melanoma (23.8% vs 16.3%, P =.02). Most new CMs (n = 30, 62.5%) were diagnosed after the last date of ICI administration. Twenty-seven (56.3%) new CMs were in situ and 21 (43.8%) were invasive. Of the invasive CMs with a reported Breslow thickness (n = 20), the median (range) thickness was 0.4 (0.1-8.4) mm. The overall incidence proportion of new CM was 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.5%) and the incidence rate was 1103 cases per 100000 person-years (95% CI, 815-1492). The 5-year cumulative cause-specific risk of new CM was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.3%-7.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients treated with ICI therapy for metastatic melanoma remain at risk for the development of new CM.. © 2021 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Clinical and dermoscopic features associated with lichen planus-like keratoses that undergo skin biopsy: A single-center, observational study

Background/Objectives: Lichen planus-like keratoses (LPLK) are benign skin lesions that can mimic malignancy; the clinical and dermoscopic features distinguishing lichen planus-like keratoses from skin tumors have not been extensively studied. The objective of this study was to identify dermoscopic features that may prevent unnecessary biopsies of lichen planus-like keratoses. Methods: Retrospective, single-center, observational study of biopsied skin lesions at a tertiary center. We compared 355 lichen planus-like keratoses to 118 non-lichen planus-like keratoses lesions with lichen planus-like keratosis in the differential diagnosis biopsied from August 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016. The investigators were blinded to the diagnosis of the lesions. Results: Lichen planus-like keratoses were most frequently non-pigmented (61.7%), truncal (52.1%), and on sun-damaged skin (69.6%); the majority occurred in Whites (95.5%) and females (62.8%). Dermoscopically, lichen planus-like keratoses were more likely than non-lichen planus-like keratoses to have scale (42.5% vs 31.4%, P = 0.03) and orange colour (8.2% vs 0.9%, P = 0.01). Among lesions with peppering (n = 76; 63 lichen planus-like keratoses and 13 non-lichen planus-like keratoses), coarse ± fine peppering (73% vs 38.5%, P = 0.02) and peppering as the only feature (34.9% vs 0%, P = 0.01) were associated with lichen planus-like keratoses. Conclusions: Lichen planus-like keratoses can be challenging to distinguish from benign and malignant skin tumors. The presence of dermoscopic scale and orange colour may aid in the recognition of lichen planus-like keratosis. Coarse peppering and the presence of peppering as the only dermoscopic feature may further aid the identification of pigmented lichen planus-like keratoses. © 2018 The Australasian College of Dermatologist

Association between the dermoscopic morphology of peripheral globules and melanocytic lesion diagnosis

Background The presence of peripheral globules is associated with enlarging melanocytic lesions; however, there are numerous patterns of peripheral globules distribution and it remains unknown whether specific patterns can help differentiate enlarging naevi from melanoma. Objective To investigate whether morphological differences exist between the peripheral globules seen in different subsets of naevi and in melanoma. Methods A cross‐sectional study of clinical notes that mentioned peripheral globules, in addition to all melanoma images with peripheral globules on the International Skin Imaging Collaboration archive. Dermoscopic images were reviewed and annotated. Associations between diagnosis and categorical features were measured with odds ratios. Non‐parametric tests were used for continuous factors. Results 184 lesions with peripheral globules from our clinic were included in the analysis; only 6 of these proved to be melanoma. 109 melanomas with peripheral globules from the International Skin Imaging Collaboration archive were added to the analysis. Melanomas were more common on the extremities and among older individuals. Melanomas were more likely to display atypical, tiered and/or focal peripheral globules. Only 5% of melanomas lacked dermoscopic melanoma‐specific structures compared to 48% of naevi. Conclusions Melanocytic lesions with atypical or asymmetrically distributed peripheral globules, especially when located on the extremities, should raise suspicion for malignancy. Melanocytic lesions with typical and symmetrically distributed peripheral globules, and with no other concerning dermoscopic features, are unlikely to be malignant

Agreement Between Experts and an Untrained Crowd for Identifying Dermoscopic Features Using a Gamified App: Reader Feasibility Study

Background: Dermoscopy is commonly used for the evaluation of pigmented lesions, but agreement between experts for identification of dermoscopic structures is known to be relatively poor. Expert labeling of medical data is a bottleneck in the development of machine learning (ML) tools, and crowdsourcing has been demonstrated as a cost- and time-efficient method for the annotation of medical images. Objective: The aim of this study is to demonstrate that crowdsourcing can be used to label basic dermoscopic structures from images of pigmented lesions with similar reliability to a group of experts. Methods: First, we obtained labels of 248 images of melanocytic lesions with 31 dermoscopic “subfeatures” labeled by 20 dermoscopy experts. These were then collapsed into 6 dermoscopic “superfeatures” based on structural similarity, due to low interrater reliability (IRR): dots, globules, lines, network structures, regression structures, and vessels. These images were then used as the gold standard for the crowd study. The commercial platform DiagnosUs was used to obtain annotations from a nonexpert crowd for the presence or absence of the 6 superfeatures in each of the 248 images. We replicated this methodology with a group of 7 dermatologists to allow direct comparison with the nonexpert crowd. The Cohen κ value was used to measure agreement across raters. Results: In total, we obtained 139,731 ratings of the 6 dermoscopic superfeatures from the crowd. There was relatively lower agreement for the identification of dots and globules (the median κ values were 0.526 and 0.395, respectively), whereas network structures and vessels showed the highest agreement (the median κ values were 0.581 and 0.798, respectively). This pattern was also seen among the expert raters, who had median κ values of 0.483 and 0.517 for dots and globules, respectively, and 0.758 and 0.790 for network structures and vessels. The median κ values between nonexperts and thresholded average–expert readers were 0.709 for dots, 0.719 for globules, 0.714 for lines, 0.838 for network structures, 0.818 for regression structures, and 0.728 for vessels. Conclusions: This study confirmed that IRR for different dermoscopic features varied among a group of experts; a similar pattern was observed in a nonexpert crowd. There was good or excellent agreement for each of the 6 superfeatures between the crowd and the experts, highlighting the similar reliability of the crowd for labeling dermoscopic images. This confirms the feasibility and dependability of using crowdsourcing as a scalable solution to annotate large sets of dermoscopic images, with several potential clinical and educational applications, including the development of novel, explainable ML tools. ©Jonathan Kentley, Jochen Weber, Konstantinos Liopyris, Ralph P Braun, Ashfaq A Marghoob, Elizabeth A Quigley, Kelly Nelson, Kira Prentice, Erik Duhaime, Allan C Halpern, Veronica Rotemberg

Reflectance confocal microscopy terminology glossary for melanocytic skin lesions: A systematic review

Background: There is lack of uniformity in the reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) terminology for melanocytic lesions. Objective: To review published RCM terms for melanocytic lesions and identify redundant, synonymous terms. Methods: A systematic review of original research articles adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was conducted until August 15, 2018. Two investigators gathered all published RCM terms used to describe melanoma and melanocytic nevi. Synonymous terms were grouped based on similarity in definition and in histopathologic correlation. Results: Out of 156 full-text screened articles, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. We identified 209 terms; 191 (91.4%) corresponding to high-magnification/cellular-level terms and 18 (8.6%) corresponding to low-magnification/architectural patterns terms. The overall average use frequency of RCM terms was 3.1 times (range, 1-31). By grouping of individual RCM terms based on likely synonymous definitions and by eliminating terms lacking clear definition, the total number of RCM terms could be potentially reduced from 209 to 40 terms (80.8% reduction). Limitations: Non-English and non–peer-reviewed articles were excluded. Conclusions: This systematic review of published RCM terms identified significant terminology redundancy. It provides the basis for subsequent terminology consensus on melanocytic neoplasms. © 2020 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc