Report
Dermoscopy report: Proposal for standardization: Results of a consensus meeting of the International Dermoscopy Society

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2006.02.051Get rights and content

Background

Dermoscopy can assist clinicians in the evaluation and diagnosis of skin tumors. Since dermoscopy is becoming widely accepted and used in the medical community, there is now the need for a standardized method for documenting dermoscopic findings so as to be able to effectively communicate such information among colleagues.

Objectives

Toward this end, the International Dermoscopy Society embarked on creating a consensus document for the standardization and recommended criteria necessary to be able to effectively convey dermoscopic findings to consulting physicians and colleagues.

Methods

The Dermoscopy Report Steering Committee created an extensive list of dermoscopic criteria obtained from an exhaustive search of the literature. A preliminary document listing all the dermoscopic criteria that could potentially be included in a standardized dermoscopy report was elaborated and presented to the members of the International Dermoscopy Society Board in two meetings of the Society and subsequently discussed via Internet communications between members and the Steering Committee.

Results

A consensus document including 10 points categorized as either recommended or optional and a template of the dermoscopy report were obtained. The final items included in the document are as follows: (1) patient's age, relevant history pertaining to the lesion, pertinent personal and family history (recommended); (2) clinical description of the lesion (recommended); (3) the two-step method of dermoscopy differentiating melanocytic from nonmelanocytic tumors (recommended); (4) the use of standardized terms to describe structures as defined by the Dermoscopy Consensus Report published in 2003. For new terms it would be helpful to provide a working definition (recommended); (5) the dermoscopic algorithm used should be mentioned (optional); (6) information on the imaging equipment and magnification (recommended); (7) clinical and dermoscopic images of the tumor (recommended); (8) a diagnosis or differential diagnosis (recommended); (9) decision concerning the management (recommended); (10) specific comments for the pathologist when excision and histopathologic examination are recommended (optional).

Limitations

The limitations of this study are those that are intrinsic of a consensus document obtained from critical review of the literature and discussion by opinion leaders in the field.

Conclusions

Although it may be acceptable for a consulting physician to only state the dermoscopic diagnosis, the proposed standardized reporting system, if accepted and utilized, will make it easier for consultants to communicate with each other more effectively.

Section snippets

Material and methods

The project for the dermoscopy report consensus document was proposed at the meeting of the IDS in February 2003 to the Board of the Society. A steering committee was chosen for this endeavor. The work began with an extensive search by the committee to identify publications on dermoscopy. This search included medical databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE) up to January 1987. In addition, the Dermoscopy Report Committee reviewed the reference lists from the retrieved articles, searched personal

Results

Information considered relevant by the majority of IDS Board members has been incorporated into the 10-point dermoscopy report outlined in the following paragraphs. The 10 points were subsequently classified into two categories: “recommended” and “optional.” These criteria are summarized in Table I.

Discussion

The guiding principle in the development of this dermoscopy consensus document was to select the most relevant items, based on scientific evidence and expert experience, to be included in the final report. The 10-point template was designed so as to be able to communicate vital information concerning the patient and a given tumor. The Dermoscopy Report Steering Committee believes that having a standardized dermoscopy reporting system with standard criteria will make it easier for consultants to

References (77)

  • H. Kittler et al.

    Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy

    Lancet Oncol

    (2002)
  • H. Pehamberger et al.

    In vivo epiluminescence microscopy of pigmented skin lesions. I. Pattern analysis of pigmented skin lesions

    J Am Acad Dermatol

    (1987)
  • F. Nachbar et al.

    The ABCD rule of dermatoscopy: high prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions

    J Am Acad Dermatol

    (1994)
  • H. Kittler et al.

    Morphologic changes of pigmented skin lesions: a useful extension of the ABCD rule for dermatoscopy

    J Am Acad Dermatol

    (1999)
  • A. Blum et al.

    Modified ABC-point list of dermoscopy: a simplified and highly accurate dermoscopic algorithm for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions

    J Am Acad Dermatol

    (2003)
  • H.P. Soyer et al.

    Is dermoscopy useful for the diagnosis of melanoma?

    Arch Dermatol

    (2001)
  • M. Bafounta et al.

    Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of the diagnostic tests

    Arch Dermatol

    (2001)
  • G. Argenziano et al.

    Interactive atlas of dermoscopy

    (2000)
  • H. Cabo

    Dermatoscopia

    (2000)
  • R. Johr et al.

    Dermoscopy: the essentials

    (2004)
  • J. Kreusch et al.

    Auflichtmikroskopie pigmentierter Hauttumoren. Ein Bildatlas

    (1991)
  • S.W. Menzies et al.

    An atlas of surface microscopy of pigmented skin lesions: Dermoscopy

    (2003)
  • H.S. Rabinovitz

    Dermoscopy. A practical guide

    (1999)
  • H.S. Rabinovitz et al.

    Dermoscopy and new imaging techniques

    (2001)
  • H.P. Soyer et al.

    Dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions. An atlas based on the Consensus Net Meeting on Dermoscopy 2000

    (2001)
  • W. Stolz et al.

    Color atlas of dermatoscopy

    (2002)
  • Gisele G, Rezze, Bianca C, Soares de Sá, Rogerio I Neves, editors. Atlas de dermatoscòpia aplicada. Sao Paulo: Lemar....
  • G. Argenziano et al.

    Dermatoscopic pitfalls in differentiating pigmented Spitz naevi from cutaneous melanomas

    Br J Dermatol

    (1999)
  • I. Stanganelli et al.

    Critical effects of intense sun exposure on the expression of epiluminescence microscopy features of acquired melanocytic nevi

    Arch Dermatol

    (1997)
  • R. Hofmann-Wellenhof et al.

    Dermoscopic classification of atypical melanocytic nevi (Clark nevi)

    Arch Dermatol

    (2001)
  • J.J. Grob et al.

    The ugly duckling sign: identification of the common characteristics of nevi in an individual as a basis for melanoma screening

    Arch Dermatol

    (1998)
  • B.P. Negin et al.

    Symptoms and signs of primary melanoma: important indicators of Breslow depth

    Cancer

    (2003)
  • I. Zalaudek et al.

    Dermoscopic features of melanoma on the scalp

    J Am Acad Dermatol

    (2004)
  • T. Saida et al.

    In vivo observation of magnified features of pigmented lesions on volar skin using video microscope. Usefulness of epiluminescence techniques in clinical diagnosis

    Arch Dermatol

    (1995)
  • S. Oguchi et al.

    Characteristic epiluminescent microscopic features of early malignant melanoma on glabrous skin. A videomicroscopic analysis

    Arch Dermatol

    (1998)
  • Cited by (95)

    • Dermoscopic evaluation of superficial spreading melanoma

      2021, Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia
      Citation Excerpt :

      The analysis of the images was performed blindly, without knowledge of the Breslow index and other variables, by two observers (FVB and MLPF) with experience in the area of dermoscopy who, together, agreed as to the presence or absence of the evaluated criteria. The registered dermoscopic criteria and patterns are described in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.20–28 As many images were not examined with a polarized light dermoscope, chrysalises were not included in the study as they can only be seen with this type of device.22,23

    • Dermoscopy: The Essentials

      2020, Dermoscopy: The Essentials
    • Segmentation of skin lesions in dermoscopy images using fuzzy classification of pixels and histogram thresholding

      2019, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Firstly, it is clear that it needs to be properly segmented in order to conduct a suitable analysis of the indicators present in the lesion, with the most relevant ones being what are known as dermoscopic patterns –some fine work on their recognition can be found in [1–5]–. Secondly, some values calculated in terms of the border itself, such as the degree of abruption in the “ABCD Rule” and “Menzies Method”, in themselves constitute indicators of malignancy [6]. Automated segmentation of a skin lesion in a dermoscopy image is beset with major problems, both in terms of the difficulty from the image digital processing standpoint –as explained in 1.1– and owing to the problem in evaluating methods –as shown in 1.2–.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Funding sources: None.

    Conflicts of interest: None declared.

    Board Members of the International Dermoscopy Society: R. Anadolu (Turkey), L. Andreassi (Italy); I. Bartenjev (Slovenia); R. Bergman (Israel); M. Binder (Austria); A. Blum (Germany); J. Bowling (United Kingdom), R. Braun (Switzerland); H. Cabo (Argentina); L. Cabrijan (Croatia); P. Carli (Italy); B. Carlos (Mexico); S. Chimenti (Italy); A. B. Cognetta (United States); R. Corona (Italy); V. De Giorgi (Italy); H. Dong (China); G. Ferrara (Italy); M. Fleming (United States); J. Grichnik (United States); C. Grin-Jorgensen (United States); A. Halpern (United States), R. Hofmann-Wellenhof (Austria); C. Ingvar (Sweden); R. Johr (United States), B. Katz (United States), H. Kerl (Austria); H. Kittler (Austria); A. W. Kopf (United States); J. Kreusch (Germany); D. Langford (New Zealand); B. Li (China); H. Lorentzen (Denmark); A. A. Marghoob (United States); C. Massone (Austria); G. Mazzocchetti (Italy); W. McCarthy (Australia); S. Menzies (Australia); M. Oliviero (United States), F. Özdemir (Turkey); H. Pehamberger (Austria); G. Pellacani (Italy); K. Peris (Italy); A. Perusquia (Mexico); D. Piccolo (Italy); M. A. Pizzichetta (Italy); D. Polsky (United States); H. Rabinovitz (United States), B. Rao (United States); S. Ronger (France); P. Rubegni (Italy); T. Saida (Japan); M. Scalvenzi (Italy); R. Schiffner (Germany); S. Seidenari (Italy); I. Stanganelli (Italy); W. V. Stoecker (United States); W. Stolz (Germany); M. Tanaka (Japan); L. Thomas (France); T. Tsuchida (Japan); S. Q. Wang (United States); K. Westerhoff (Sweden); I. H. Wolf (Austria); I. Zalaudek (Austria).

    View full text