Methods of melanoma detection and of skin monitoring for individuals at high risk of melanoma: new Australian clinical practice guidelines

Adler, Nikki R; Kelly, John W; Guitera, Pascale; Menzies, Scott W; Chamberlain, Alex J; Fishburn, Paul; Button‐Sloan, Alison E; Heal, Clinton; Soyer, H Peter; Thompson, John F

doi:10.5694/mja2.12033

ARTICLE
AUTHORS
REFERENCES

Topics

Neoplasms

Environment and public health

Abstract

Introduction: The evidence‐based national clinical practice guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma published in 2008 are currently being updated. This article summarises the findings from multiple chapters of the guidelines on different methods of melanoma detection and of monitoring the skin for patients at high risk of melanoma. Early detection of melanoma is critical, as thinner tumours are associated with enhanced survival; therefore, strategies to improve early detection are important to reduce melanoma‐related mortality.

Main recommendations:

Clinicians who perform skin examinations for the purpose of detecting skin cancer should be trained in and use dermoscopy.
The use of short term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging to detect melanomas that lack dermoscopic features of melanoma is recommended to assess individual melanocytic lesions of concern.
The use of long term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging to detect melanomas that lack dermoscopic features of melanoma is recommended to assess individual or multiple melanocytic lesions for routine surveillance of high risk patients.
The use of total body photography should be considered in managing patients at increased risk for melanoma, particularly those with high naevus counts and dysplastic naevi.
There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of automated instruments for the clinical diagnosis of primary melanoma.

Management overview: Determining the relative indications for each diagnostic method and how each method should be introduced into the surveillance of a patient requires careful consideration and an individualised approach.

1 Victorian Melanoma Service, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC
2 Armadale Dermatology, Melbourne, VIC
3 Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, NSW
4 University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
5 Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, NSW
6 Sydney Melanoma Diagnostic Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW
7 Victorian Melanoma Service, Alfred Health, Melbourne, VIC
8 Glenferrie Dermatology, Melbourne, VIC
9 Norwest Skin Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW
10 Melanoma Patients Australia, Brisbane, QLD
11 MelanomaWA, Perth, WA
12 Dermatology Research Centre, Diamantina Institute, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
13 Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD

Correspondence: nikki.adler@monash.edu

Acknowledgements:

The development of the new Australian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma was funded by Cancer Council Australia and the Melanoma Institute Australia, with additional support from the Skin Cancer College Australasia and the Australasian College of Dermatologists. Nikki Adler is supported by a Research Training Program stipend scholarship, Monash University. H Peter Soyer has an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship. John Thompson is supported by the Melanoma Foundation at the University of Sydney.

Competing interests:

No relevant disclosures.

1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Cancer in Australia 2017. (Cat. no. CAN 100) Canberra: AIHW; 2017. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/cancer-in-australia-2017/contents/table-of-contents (viewed Oct 2018).
2. Doran CM, Ling R, Byrnes J, et al. Estimating the economic costs of skin cancer in New South Wales, Australia. BMC Public Health 2015; 15: 952.
3. Balch CM, Gershenwald JE, Soong SJ, et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27: 6199–6206.
4. Mar VJ, Chamberlain AJ, Kelly JW, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma: melanomas that lack classical clinical features. Med J Aust 2017; 207: 348–350. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2017/207/8/clinical-practice-guidelines-diagnosis-and-management-melanoma-melanomas-lack
5. Sladden MJ, Nieweg OE, Howle J, et al. Updated evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of melanoma: definitive excision margins for primary cutaneous melanoma. Med J Aust 2018; 208: 137–142. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2018/208/3/updated-evidence-based-clinical-practice-guidelines-diagnosis-and-management
6. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines. Stage 2 Consultation. NHMRC; 2009. https://www.mja.com.au/sites/default/files/NHMRC.levels.of.evidence.2008-09.pdf (viewed Oct 2018).
7. Mintsoulis D, Beecker J. Digital dermoscopy photographs outperform handheld dermoscopy in melanoma diagnosis. J Cutan Med Surg 2016; 20: 602–605.
8. Nathansohn N, Orenstein A, Trau H, et al. Pigmented lesions clinic for early detection of melanoma: preliminary results. Isr Med Assoc J 2007; 9: 708–712.
9. Moloney FJ, Guitera P, Coates E, et al. Detection of primary melanoma in individuals at extreme high risk: a prospective 5‐year follow‐up study. JAMA Dermatology 2014; 150: 819–827.
10. Rademaker M, Oakley A. Digital monitoring by whole body photography and sequential digital dermoscopy detects thinner melanomas. J Prim Health Care 2010; 2: 268–272.
11. Salerni G, Carrera C, Lovatto L, et al. Benefits of total body photography and digital dermatoscopy (“two‐step method of digital follow‐up”) in the early diagnosis of melanoma in patients at high risk for melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012; 67: e17–e27.
12. Truong A, Strazzulla L, March J, et al. Reduction in nevus biopsies in patients monitored by total body photography. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016; 75: 135–143.
13. Goodson AG, Florell SR, Hyde M, et al. Comparative analysis of total body and dermatoscopic photographic monitoring of nevi in similar patient populations at risk for cutaneous melanoma. Dermatol Surg 2010; 36: 1087–1098.
14. Argenziano G, Puig S, Zalaudek I, et al. Dermoscopy improves accuracy of primary care physicians to triage lesions suggestive of skin cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24: 1877–1882.
15. Carli P, de Giorgi V, Chiarugi A, et al. Addition of dermoscopy to conventional naked‐eye examination in melanoma screening: a randomized study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50: 683–689.
16. Carli P, De Giorgi V, Crocetti E, et al. Improvement of malignant/benign ratio in excised melanocytic lesions in the “dermoscopy era”: a retrospective study 1997–2001. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 687–692.
17. Carli P, Mannone F, De Giorgi V, et al. The problem of false‐positive diagnosis in melanoma screening: the impact of dermoscopy. Melanoma Res 2003; 13: 179–182.
18. Bono A, Bartoli C, Cascinelli N, et al. Melanoma detection. A prospective study comparing diagnosis with the naked eye, dermatoscopy and telespectrophotometry. Dermatology 2002; 205: 362–326.
19. Bono A, Tolomio E, Trincone S, et al. Micro‐melanoma detection: a clinical study on 206 consecutive cases of pigmented skin lesions with a diameter < or = 3 mm. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155: 570–573.
20. Benelli C, Roscetti E, Pozzo VD, et al. The dermoscopic versus the clinical diagnosis of melanoma. Eur J Dermatol 1999; 9: 470–476.
21. Cristofolini M, Zumiani G, Bauer P, et al. Dermatoscopy: usefulness in the differential diagnosis of cutaneous pigmentary lesions. Melanoma Res 1994; 4: 391–394.
22. Dummer W, Doehnel KA, Remy W. Videomicroscopy in differential diagnosis of skin tumors and secondary prevention of malignant melanoma [German]. Hautarzt 1993; 44: 772–776.
23. Stanganelli I, Serafini M, Bucch L. A cancer‐registry‐assisted evaluation of the accuracy of digital epiluminescence microscopy associated with clinical examination of pigmented skin lesions. Dermatology 2000; 200: 11–16.
24. Vestergaard ME, Macaskill P, Holt PE, et al. Dermoscopy compared with naked eye examination for the diagnosis of primary melanoma: a meta‐analysis of studies performed in a clinical setting. Br J Dermatol 2008; 159: 669–676.
25. Menzies SW, Emery J, Staples M, et al. Impact of dermoscopy and short‐term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging for the management of pigmented lesions in primary care: a sequential intervention trial. Br J Dermatol 2009; 161: 1270–1277.
26. Koelink CJ, Vermeulen KM, Kollen BJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and cost‐effectiveness of dermoscopy in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2014; 28: 1442–1449.
27. van der Rhee JI, Bergman W, Kukutsch NA. Impact of dermoscopy on the management of high‐risk patients from melanoma families: a prospective study. Acta Derm Venereol 2011; 91: 428–431.
28. Kittler H, Guitera P, Riedl E, et al. Identification of clinically featureless incipient melanoma using sequential dermoscopy imaging. Arch Dermatol 2006; 142: 1113–1119.
29. Haenssle HA, Krueger U, Vente C, et al. Results from an observational trial: digital epiluminescence microscopy follow‐up of atypical nevi increases the sensitivity and the chance of success of conventional dermoscopy in detecting melanoma. J Invest Dermatol 2006; 126: 980–985.
30. Altamura D, Avramidis M, Menzies SW. Assessment of the optimal interval for and sensitivity of short‐term sequential digital dermoscopy monitoring for the diagnosis of melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2008; 144: 502–506.
31. Robinson JK, Nickoloff BJ. Digital epiluminescence microscopy monitoring of high‐risk patients. Arch Dermatol 2004; 140: 49–56.
32. Menzies SW, Gutenev A, Avramidis M, et al. Short‐term digital surface microscopic monitoring of atypical or changing melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1583–1589.
33. Salerni G, Terán T, Alonso C, Fernández‐Bussy R. The role of dermoscopy and digital dermoscopy follow‐up in the clinical diagnosis of melanoma: clinical and dermoscopic features of 99 consecutive primary melanomas. Dermatol Pract Concept 2014; 4: 39–46.
34. Moloney FJ, Guitera P, Coates E, et al. Detection of primary melanoma in individuals at extreme high risk: a prospective 5‐year follow‐up study. JAMA Dermatol 2014; 150: 819–827.
35. Salerni G, Carrera C, Lovatto L, et al. Characterization of 1152 lesions excised over 10 years using total‐body photography and digital dermatoscopy in the surveillance of patients at high risk for melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2012; 67: 836–845.
36. Tromme I, Sacré L, Hammouch F, et al. Availability of digital dermoscopy in daily practice dramatically reduces the number of excised melanocytic lesions: results from an observational study. Br J Dermatol 2012; 167: 778–786.
37. Schiffner R, Schiffner‐Rohe J, Landthaler M, Stolz W. Long‐term dermoscopic follow‐up of melanocytic naevi: clinical outcome and patient compliance. Br J Dermatol 2003; 149: 79–86.
38. Haenssle HA, Korpas B, Hansen‐Hagge C, et al. Selection of patients for long‐term surveillance with digital dermoscopy by assessment of melanoma risk factors. Arch Dermatol 2010; 146: 257–264.
39. Fuller SR, Bowen GM, Tanner B, et al. Digital dermoscopic monitoring of atypical nevi in patients at risk for melanoma. Dermatol Surg 2007; 33: 1198–1206.
40. Monheit G, Cognetta AB, Ferris L, et al. The performance of MelaFind: a prospective multicenter study. Arch Dermatol 2011; 147: 188–194.
41. Malvehy J, Hauschild A, Curiel‐Lewandrowski C, et al. Clinical performance of the Nevisense system in cutaneous melanoma detection: an international, multicentre, prospective and blinded clinical trial on efficacy and safety. Br J Dermatol 2014; 171: 1099–1107.
42. Kittler H, Marghoob AA, Argenziano G, et al. Standardization of terminology in dermoscopy/dermatoscopy: results of the third consensus conference of the International Society of Dermoscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016; 74: 1093–1106.
43. Argenziano G, Giacomel J, Zalaudek I, et al. A clinico‐dermoscopic approach for skin cancer screening: recommendations involving a survey of the International Dermoscopy Society. Dermatol Clin 2013; 31: 525–534.
44. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol 2002; 3: 159–165.
45. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, Saiag P. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of melanoma? Results of a meta‐analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol 2001; 137: 1343–1350.
46. Haenssle HA, Hoffmann S, Holzkamp R, et al. Melanoma thickness: the role of patients’ characteristics, risk indicators and patterns of diagnosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29: 102–108.
47. Westerhoff K, McCarthy WH, Menzies SW. Increase in the sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis by primary care physicians using skin surface microscopy. Br J Dermatol 2000; 143: 1016–1020.
48. Dolianitis C, Kelly J, Wolfe R, Simpson P. Comparative performance of 4 dermoscopic algorithms by nonexperts for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol 2005; 141: 1008–1014.
49. Binder M, Puespoeck‐Schwarz M, Steiner A, et al. Epiluminescence microscopy of small pigmented skin lesions: short‐term formal training improves the diagnostic performance of dermatologists. J Am Acad Dermatol 1997; 36: 197–202.
50. Salerni G, Terán T, Puig S, et al. Meta‐analysis of digital dermoscopy follow‐up of melanocytic skin lesions: a study on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2013; 27: 805–814.
51. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Follow‐up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital epiluminescence microscopy: patterns of modifications observed in early melanoma, atypical nevi, and common nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 43: 467–476.
52. Feit NE, Dusza SW, Marghoob AA. Melanomas detected with the aid of total cutaneous photography. Br J Dermatol 2004; 150: 706–714.
53. Kelly JW, Yeatman JM, Regalia C, et al. A high incidence of melanoma found in patients with multiple dysplastic naevi by photographic surveillance. Med J Aust 1997; 167: 191–194. https://www.mja.com.au/journal/1997/167/4/high-incidence-melanoma-found-patients-multiple-dysplastic-naevi-photographic
54. Banky JP, Kelly JW, English DR, et al. Incidence of new and changed nevi and melanomas detected using baseline images and dermoscopy in patients at high risk for melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2005; 141: 998–1006.
55. Rosado B, Menzies S, Harbauer A, et al. Accuracy of computer diagnosis of melanoma: a quantitative meta‐analysis. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139: 361–367.
56. Xiong YD, Ma S, Li X, et al. A meta‐analysis of reflectance confocal microscopy for the diagnosis of malignant skin tumours. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2016; 30: 1295–1302.
57. Menge TD, Hibler BP, Cordova MA, et al. Concordance of handheld reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) with histopathology in the diagnosis of lentigo maligna (LM): a prospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol 2016; 74: 1114–1120.
58. Guitera P, Pellacani G, Crotty KA, et al. The impact of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy on the diagnostic accuracy of lentigo maligna and equivocal pigmented and nonpigmented macules of the face. J Invest Dermatol 2010; 130: 2080–2091.
59. Borsari S, Pampena R, Lallas A, et al. Clinical indications for use of reflectance confocal microscopy for skin cancer diagnosis. JAMA Dermatol 2016; 152: 1093–1098.
60. Ludzik J, Witkowski AM, Roterman‐Konieczna I, et al. Improving diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopically equivocal pink cutaneous lesions with reflectance confocal microscopy in telemedicine settings: double reader concordance evaluation of 316 cases. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0162495.
61. Guitera P, Menzies SW, Argenziano G, et al. Dermoscopy and in vivo confocal microscopy are complementary techniques for diagnosis of difficult amelanotic and light‐coloured skin lesions. Br J Dermatol 2016; 175: 1311–1319.
62. Alarcon I, Carrera C, Palou J, et al. Impact of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy on the number needed to treat melanoma in doubtful lesions. Br J Dermatol 2014; 170: 802–808.
63. Ferrari B, Pupelli G, Farnetani F, et al. Dermoscopic difficult lesions: an objective evaluation of reflectance confocal microscopy impact for accurate diagnosis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2015; 29: 1135–1140.
64. Stanganelli I, Longo C, Mazzoni L, et al. Integration of reflectance confocal microscopy in sequential dermoscopy follow‐up improves melanoma detection accuracy. Br J Dermatol 2015; 172: 365–371.
65. Watts CG, Cust AE, Menzies SW, et al. Cost‐effectiveness of skin surveillance through a specialized clinic for patients at high risk of melanoma. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 63–71.
66. Janda M, Loescher LJ, Soyer H. Enhanced skin self‐examination: a novel approach to skin cancer monitoring and follow‐up. JAMA Dermatol 2013; 149: 231–236.
67. Secker LJ, Bergman W, Kukutsch NA. Total body photography as an aid to skin self‐examination: a patient's perspective. Acta Derm Venereol 2016; 96: 186–190.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.

Methods of melanoma detection and of skin monitoring for individuals at high risk of melanoma: new Australian clinical practice guidelines

Topics

Abstract

Author

Comment

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *