Melanoma Today DPC Journal Special Issue table of contents Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Melanoma: A Review Claudio Conforti, Iris Zalaudek Evolution of the Clinical, Dermoscopic and Pathologic Diagnosis of Melanoma Harald Kittler Melanoma: Staging and Follow-Up Chryssoula Papageorgiou, Zoe Apalla, Sofia-Magdalini Manoli, Konstantinos Lallas, Efstratios Vakirlis, Aimilios Lallas Current Landscape and Open Questions on Adjuvant Therapies in Melanoma Vincenzo De Falco, Stefania Napolitano, Luigi Pio Guerrera, Teresa Troiani Treatment of Advanced Metastatic Melanoma Pietro Quaglino, Paolo Fava, Luca Tonella, Marco Rubatto, Simone Ribero, Maria Teresa Fierro Mattioli 1885 www.mattioli1885.com CHIEF EDITOR Prof. Giuseppe Argenziano, MD Dermatology Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples GUEST EDITORS Prof. H. Peter Soyer, MD, FACD, FAHMS Chair in Dermatology. Director, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute; Director, Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital Prof. Paola Queirolo, MD Director of the “Divisione di Oncologia Medica del Melanoma, Sarcoma e Tumori Rari” - Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IEO Grazie al contributo di Melanoma Today DPC Journal Special Issue table of contents Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Melanoma: A Review Claudio Conforti, Iris Zalaudek The Evolution of the Clinical, Dermoscopic and Pathologic Diagnosis of Melanoma Harald Kittler Melanoma: Staging and Follow-Up Chryssoula Papageorgiou, Zoe Apalla, Sofia-Magdalini Manoli, Konstantinos Lallas, Efstratios Vakirlis, Aimilios Lallas Current Landscape and Open Questions on Adjuvant Therapies in Melanoma Vincenzo De Falco, Stefania Napolitano, Luigi Pio Guerrera, Teresa Troiani Treatment of Advanced Metastatic Melanoma Pietro Quaglino, Paolo Fava, Luca Tonella, Marco Rubatto, Simone Ribero, Maria Teresa Fierro Mattioli 1885 www.mattioli1885.com CHIEF EDITOR Prof. Giuseppe Argenziano, MD Dermatology Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples GUEST EDITORS Prof. H. Peter Soyer, MD, FACD, FAHMS Chair in Dermatology. Director, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute; Director, Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital Prof. Paola Queirolo, MD Director of the “Divisione di Oncologia Medica del Melanoma, Sarcoma e Tumori Rari” - Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IEO Grazie al contributo di Melanoma Today DPC Journal Special Issue TABLE OF CONTENTS Epidemiology and Risk Factors of Melanoma: A Review Claudio Conforti, Iris Zalaudek The Evolution of the Clinical, Dermoscopic and Pathologic Diagnosis of Melanoma Harald Kittler Melanoma: Staging and Follow-Up Chryssoula Papageorgiou, Zoe Apalla, Sofia-Magdalini Manoli, Konstantinos Lallas, Efstratios Vakirlis, Aimilios Lallas Current Landscape and Open Questions on Adjuvant Therapies in Melanoma Vincenzo De Falco, Stefania Napolitano, Luigi Pio Guerrera, Teresa Troiani Treatment of Advanced Metastatic Melanoma Pietro Quaglino, Paolo Fava, Luca Tonella, Marco Rubatto, Simone Ribero, Maria Teresa Fierro Guest Editors Prof. H. Peter Soyer, MD, FACD, FAHMS Chair in Dermatology. Director, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute; Director, Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital Prof. Paola Queirolo, MD Director of the “Divisione di Oncologia Medica del Melanoma, Sarcoma e Tumori Rari” - Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IEO. Thanks to Dermatology Practical & Conceptual Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S 1 Evolution of the Clinical, Dermoscopic and Pathologic Diagnosis of Melanoma Harald Kittler Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Key words: Melanoma, dermoscopy, dermatoscopy, pathology Citation: Kittler H. Evolution of the Clinical, Dermoscopic and Pathologic Diagnosis of Melanoma. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.11S1a163S Accepted: April 26, 2021; Published: July 2021 Copyright: ©2021 Kittler. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License BY-NC-4.0, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited. Funding: None Competing interests: The author has no conflict of interest to disclose Corresponding author: Harald Kittler, MD. Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Guertel 18-20, 1090 Vienna, Austria. E-Mail: harald.kittler@meduniwien.ac.at The conventional narrative states that the steadily rising incidence of melanoma among fair-skinned Caucasian populations during the last decades is caused by excessive UV-exposure. There is, however, no doubt that other factors had a significant impact on the rising incidence of melanoma. Pre-1980s the clinical diagnosis of melanoma was based on gross criteria such as ulceration or bleeding. Mel- anomas were often diagnosed in advanced stages when the prognosis was grim. In the mid-1980s education campaigns such as the propagation of the ABCD criteria, which addressed health care pro- fessionals and the public alike, shifted the focus towards early recognition. Dermatoscopy, which became increasingly popular in the mid-1990s, improved the accuracy for the diagnosis of melanoma in comparison to inspection with the unaided eye, especially for flat and small lesions lacking ABCD criteria. At the same time, pathologists began to lower their thresholds, particularly for the diagnosis of melanoma in situ. The melanoma epidemic that followed was mainly driven by an increase in the number of in situ or microinvasive melanomas. In a few decades, the landscape shifted from an un- ABSTRACT This article is part of the DPC Journal Special Issue Melanoma Today Guest Editors Prof. H. Peter Soyer, MD, FACD, FAHMS Chair in Dermatology. Director, Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute; Director, Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital Prof. Paola Queirolo, MD Director of the “Divisione di oncologia Medica del Melanoma, sarcoma e Tumori Rari” - Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IEO. 2 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S Introduction A conventional introduction of an article on melanoma diag- nosis usually includes statements on the rising incidence and mortality of melanoma in general, and that melanoma is the most lethal type of skin cancer. While the latter is not true (the lethality of Merkel cell carcinoma is higher), the incidence and mortality rates of melanoma seem to have peaked recently[1]. Furthermore, a conventional introduction will also include a statement that the steadily rising incidence of melanoma among fair-skinned Caucasian populations is caused by excessive intermitted UV-exposure[2-4], but will not mention that increased public awareness, early recognition campaigns, technical innovations, and lower thresholds of pathologists had a significant impact on the rising incidence of melanoma. A Pubmed literature search using “melanoma” and “diag- nosis” keywords yields 68102 articles if unrestricted and 9621 articles if the search is limited to the past 3 years. It is obvious that even the most ambitious review cannot cover all aspects of melanoma diagnosis. Like any type of scien- tific research, a review should not only collect data but also create a narrative with explanatory power. The aim of this review is not to be exhaustive but to focus on the evolution of the criteria and concepts for melanoma diagnosis. While melanoma was exceedingly rare pre-1980, we observed a dramatic increase in the incidence in some parts of the world [5,6]. This statement deserves an explanation. It is the major underlying hypothesis of this review that this epidemic can in most parts be explained by changing diagnostic concepts and progress in the field of in-vivo examination techniques. This interpretation is increasingly shared by others, although with different conclusions [7]. Advocates of early recognition, dermatologists and general practitioners alike, are faced with increasing criticism [8,9]. According to the opinions of critics, the increased inci- dence of melanoma is due to overdiagnosis, that goes hand in hand with an increase in the number of unnecessary biopsies and excisions driven by in vivo examination techniques such as dermatoscopy. In this scenario overdiagnosis and unneces- sary surgery lead, according to critics, to increased morbidity and anxiety, while at the same time there is no evidence sup- porting improved survival following early recognition. As a solution, Welch et al recently suggested not to biopsy pigmented lesions with a diameter smaller than 6 mm [7]. While Welch et al rightly addressed many problematic issues in the field of melanoma diagnosis, this suggestion indicates a lack of knowledge of and a lack of confidence in current diagnostic techniques. Clinical Diagnosis By clinical diagnosis we refer to the diagnosis of melanoma with the unaided eye, which was state-of-the art before the introduction of the dermatoscope. The natural starting point for a review on the clinical diagnosis of melanoma are the ABCD criteria. These were popularized in the mid-1980s, mainly in the US [10]. Before the 1980s the diagnosis of melanoma was based on gross features such as ulceration or bleeding. The ABCD criteria mark the first attempt to sum- marize melanoma criteria in a simple mnemonic that is easy to remember. It includes asymmetry (A), border irregularity (B), color variegation (C), and diameter larger than 6mm (D) criteria. The ABCD criteria were developed following the increasing need to educate physicians and the public to recognize melanoma at earlier stages. In the words of Darrel Rigel, who was part of the team that popularized the ABCD criteria in the 1980s, it was “intended to be a simple tool that could be implemented in daily life, a mnemonic as easy as ABC to alert both laypersons and healthcare professionals to the clinical features of early melanoma” [11]. Along the same line, Rona McKie propagated a 7-point checklist to support non-dermatologists in recognizing pos- sible melanomas[12,13]. The checklist was known as the Glasgow 7-point checklist and was quite popular in the UK. The clinical ABCD criteria and the Glasgow 7-point checklist became blueprints for other simple mnemonics, such as the ABCD rule [14] or the 7-point checklist for dermatoscopy [15], which even in terms of their naming, directly refer to their historic models. Interestingly, neither the ABCD criteria dercalling to an overcalling of melanomas, a development that is now met with increased criticism. The gold standard of melanoma diagnosis is still conventional pathology, which is faced with low to moderate interobserver agreement. New insights in the molecular landscape of melanoma did not translate into techniques for the reliable diagnosis of gray zone lesions including small lesions. The aim of this review is to put our current view of melanoma diagnosis in historical context and to provide a narrative synthesis of its evolution. Based on this narrative I will provide suggestions on how to rebuild the trust in melanoma diagnosis accuracy and in the benefit of early recognition. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S 3 nor the Glasgow 7-point checklist were derived from statis- tical evidence but rather from the best judgements of expert clinicians. At the same time in 1985, A Bernard Ackerman, who was an influential figure in the field of dermatology and dermatopathology, wrote a lively plea for early recognition of melanoma entitled “No one should die of malignant melanoma” [16]. In a series of articles and book chapters, Ackerman and his coworkers set forth and refined criteria for the clinical and histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma in situ. Pre 1980s, the recognition of melanoma in situ was not widely accepted and it was rather viewed as a precursor but not as authentic melanoma. The combined effect of increased public awareness and education of healthcare professionals to recognize the early stages of melanoma had a major impact on the diagnosis of melanoma. The incidence of melanoma increased, and the epidemic of melanoma started. From an early recognition point of view, the most crit- ical parameter in the ABCD criteria was the diameter. A size threshold puts a limit to how early melanomas can be diagnosed. The ABCD rule gives credit to the fact that small melanomas are difficult to diagnose because melanomas smaller than 6 mm are usually not asymmetric and multicol- ored, at least when viewed with the unaided eye. Size limits were also part of other algorithms. The Glasgow 7-point checklist established a size limit of 7 mm. A popular algorithm for the diagnosis of acral melanoma developed by Saida et al determined a size limit of 7 mm for the diagnosis of acral melanoma [17]. The diagnosis of melanoma of the nail matrix is discouraged if the pigmentation covers less than 1/3 of the nail plate [18]. Size limits have the problem that, at least in theory, all melanomas start smaller than 6 mm. A reevaluation of the ABCD criteria in 2004, however, concluded that the size limit of 6 mm should not be lowered[19]. In light of the fact that melanomas smaller than 6 mm were increasingly recognized, the authors suggested that “the ABCD should be expanded to ABCDE (E standing for enlargement or evo- lution) to emphasize the significance of evolving pigmented lesions for the diagnosis of melanoma”. The disadvantage of the newly added E criterion relies on the fact that it depends on information collected over time. Although the self-reported history of patients or information provided by a spouse or partner can at times be a valuable source for this type of information, it is not perfectly reli- able[20, 21]. Total body photography (TBP) on the other hand, helps to detect new and changing lesions independent from the attention of the patient and thereby facilitates the detection of small and inconspicuous melanomas [22–24]. It also reduces the number of unnecessary excisions of benign lesions [25]. In a recent meta-analysis, Ji-Xu calculated that total body photography of high-risk individuals significantly reduced the number of biopsies needed to detect one mela- noma from 14.8 to 8.6 [26]. Most melanomas detected by TBP were in situ, highlighting the impact of TBP for early recognition. TBP is especially useful for individuals with mul- tiple nevi, in whom melanomas are more difficult to detect because of the abundance of nevi [27]. The “ugly duckling” approach addresses this difficulty in attempting to find the one outlier among multiple similar looking lesions. The first attempts to popularize the “ugly duckling” approach can be attributed to the French derma- tologist JJ Grob, who co-authored an article on this topic in 1998 [28]. Unlike the ABCD criteria, the “ugly duckling” method is a comparative approach that takes into account the landscape of nevi in a particular patient. It tacitly assumes that individuals have a nevus archetype and that deviations from this archetype may indicate malignancy. It is an infor- mal method as there is no rigorous definition regarding the kind of deviation that is significant. All kinds of deviation have been used to identify the outlier lesion, such as a pink lesion among pigmented lesions, a large lesion among small lesions, and a chaotic lesion among symmetric lesions. This approach can also be used to increase specificity in patients with multiple “atypical” nevi. If all nevi look atypical and none is standing out the significance of “atypia” decreases. This inverse interpretation of the “ugly duckling” approach has been more formally investigated in the field of dermatos- copy by Argenziano and coworkers [29]. In 2021, Soenksen et al. successfully used the “ugly duckling” approach to auto- matically detect outlier lesions from photographic overviews with artificial intelligence (AI) [30]. Dermatoscopy The seminal paper of Pehamberger on pigmented skin lesions pattern analysis, published in 1987 [31] paved the way for future developments of the dermatoscopic diagnosis of mel- anoma. It described patterns of benign and malignant pig- mented skin lesions and introduced and defined dermoscopic criteria that are still used today. A closer look at this classical article, however, reveals that the melanomas shown in the figures are large and could have been diagnosed without der- matoscopy. The method of dermatoscopy was still evolving and the world of dermatology was not ready to accept that melanomas can be small (smaller than 6 mm) and inconspic- uous (Figure 1). Soon thereafter other groups followed and presented their own interpretation of pattern analysis. Old concepts such as the ABCD criteria and the Glasgow 7-point checklist were reused for dermoscopy. Stolz et al invented the ABCD rule of dermoscopy and Argenziano et al the 7-point checklist[14,15]. Both methods aimed to differentiate mela- nomas from nevi. Other noteworthy algorithmic approaches include Menzies rule [32], the CASH algorithm [33], and the chaos and clues method, which appeared later [34]. Over the years 3 meta-analysis showed how dermatoscopy improved diagnostic accuracy for melanoma, compared to an unaided 4 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S eye inspection [35–37]. Another milestone was the Second Consensus Conference of Dermoscopy, which was virtually held [38]. This was a turning point for the evolution of dermatoscopy because it marks the beginning of a fruitful international collaboration among different groups that tried to establish a consensus for criteria and terminology. Prior to this milestone event, the study of dermatoscopy was fragmented into different small research groups that often antagonized each other. In the following years dermatoscopy differentiated into a complex science and criteria for melanoma were refined. Special criteria were described for acral melanoma [39–41], facial melanoma [42–44], amelanotic and hypomelanotic melanomas [45,46], nodular melanomas [47,48], mucosal melanoma[49], nail matrix melanoma [50–53], and melano- mas on chronic sun damaged skin [54]. Smaller and smaller lesions were identified as melanomas thanks to dermatoscopy pushing the diagnostic boundaries, also in dermatopathology [54–58]. Furthermore, Argenziano et al demonstrated that when applied by experienced users, dermatoscopy reduces the number of biopsies or excisions needed to detect 1 mela- noma[59]. Despite these advancements, it became clear that dermatoscopy had its limitations [59–63]. It was reported that some small and flat melanomas lack melanoma clues at the beginning and can only be diagnosed by observing changes over time with sequential digital dermatoscopy [64–68]. The finding was immediately criticized as just another way to inflate the melanoma epidemic [69]. The introduction of sequential dermatoscopy to recognize changes over time, mirrors the letter E (for evolving) addition to the ABCD criteria. Finally, dermatoscopic images are increasingly used for training of machine learning algorithms [70–75]. Computer algorithms based on deep learning outperformed dermatol- ogists in some studies and increased the expectations that AI will replace human expertise, at least for some applica- tions such as teledermatoscopy. The expectations are likely exaggerated because AI-based algorithms still lack the kind of adaptive general knowledge that is necessary to act inde- pendently from humans. It is likely, though, that AI will transform images-based diagnostic medicine in many ways. As recently demonstrated by Tschandl et al, collaboration between humans and computers is more promising than competition [72]. Histopathologic Diagnosis While it is easy to pin down the beginning of the clinical and dermatoscopic diagnosis of melanoma evolution, the same does not apply to histopathology. A possible choice is the work of LV Ackerman in the late 1940s. It was one of the first to systematically describe the pathology of “melanocar- cinoma”, as defined then [76]. All clinical photos and micro- Figure 1. (A) Clinical, (B) dermatoscopic, (C) histopathologic view of a tiny melanoma (<3 mm). Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S 5 graphs in his original publication of a series of 75 cases show advanced cases of melanoma. Of 40 patients who underwent dissection of the local lymph nodes, 37 already had lymph node metastasis at the time of diagnosis. The article is mostly interesting for its summary of beliefs about melanoma prev- alent in those days. According to LV Ackerman melanoma usually starts in a mole and “it is most unusual to find the changes of malignant melanoma entirely within the epidermis with no change in the dermis.” Interestingly, among the sug- gested treatments mentioned in this article there was also cas- tration, because it was believed that hormones have an impact on the course of the disease. In 1953, A Allen and S Spitz co-authored an article, in which they set forth their belief that all melanomas start in a preexisting mole, especially in a so called “active junctional nevus” [77]. The micrograph of the “activated junctional nevus immediately preceding the development of infiltrating melanocarcinoma” shown in figure 9 in their 1953 article shows a melanoma in situ. From the current point of view, most of what has been published on the pathology of melanoma pre-1970s is only of historical interest. The articles, however, witness the different concepts of Ackerman, Allen, Spitz, and other pioneers of melanoma pathology, compared to our current view, particularly regard- ing melanoma in situ. What has been defined a precursor by Allen and Spitz, would be called a melanoma today. In the early 1970s WH Clark and coworkers propagated a “histogenetic” classification of melanoma, which continues to be relevant until today [78,79]. In its original form the classification included 3 subtypes: nodular melanoma, super- ficial spreading melanoma, and lentigo maligna melanoma. Nodular melanoma was typified by pure vertical growth, while superficial spreading melanoma expands along the epidermis (radial or horizontal growth phase). The fourth subtype, acral lentiginous melanoma, was added later. Around the same time in the early 1970s, A Breslow introduced the invasion thickness as prognostic marker for primary skin melanoma [80,81], and in the mid-1970s, AB Ackerman and coworkers set forth histopathologic criteria for the diagnosis of melanoma that are still widely used by dermatopatholo- gists (Table 1) [82]. Ackerman also popularized the concept of melanoma in situ, clinically and pathologically, and denied the concept of precursor lesions such as “Allen’s active junc- tional nevus”, “Hutchinson’s melanotic freckle”, “Kossard’s lentiginous dysplastic nevus of the elderly”, and “precancer- ous melanosis of Dubreuilh”. According to his opinion, these were evasions from the correct diagnosis of melanoma in situ. In 1992 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) held a consensus conference to discuss the clinical and histological characteristics of early melanoma [83]. The panel of the con- sensus conference agreed that melanoma in situ is a distinct entity. With this official acceptance of “melanoma in situ” as authentic melanoma, the stage was finally set for early recognition to lift off. The increased public awareness, the availability of a new, accurate, and affordable in vivo exam- ination technique, and the lower hesitancy of pathologists to diagnose melanoma in situ acted in accordance: The incidence for melanoma skyrocketed and increased more than for any other type of cancer. Conventional pathology is still the gold standard for melanoma diagnosis but it is far from perfect. There is a large discrepancy of opinions and concepts among pathologists who tend to disagree on classification, terminology, the sig- nificance of subtypes, and on the model of tumor progression, but most importantly, they tend to disagree on the diagnosis [84–87]. For certain types of lesions there is large inter- and intra-observer variability among community-based patholo- gist whether a given lesion is benign or malignant. The most common issues of this sort concern the diagnosis of small or flat lesions and lesions with a spitzoid morphology. For these lesion categories, the community suggested terms with uncertain prognosis such as atypical Spitz tumor (AST) [88] and superficial atypical melanocytic proliferation of uncertain malignant significance (SAMPUS) [89]. There is certainly a need for such categories in practice but there are different Table 1. Significant histopathologic features of superficial spreading melanoma according to Price, Rywlin, and Ackermann 1976 Poor circumscription of the intraepidermal melanocytic component of the lesion with lateral extension of individual melanocytes Increased number of melanocytes, solitary and in nests, within and above the epidermal basal-cell layer and within adnexal epithelium (pagetoid appearance) Marked variation in size and shape of the melanocytic nests Confluence of melanocytic nests rather than discrete nests. Absence of maturation of melanocytes with descent into the dermis. Melanocytes with nuclear atypia Melanocytes in mitosis Necrosis or degeneration of melanocytes 6 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S views about the best way to express this ambiguity. One school of thought will blame the lesion (“the lesion does not know what it is”), the other the ignorance of the reporting pathologist (“the pathologist does not know what it is”). In the early 2000s the molecular revolution in medicine gained momentum and new observations challenged our concepts of melanoma biology. The first turning point was the discovery of the significance of BRAF mutations in melanoma and in nevi [90]. This was soon followed by the detection of other tumorigenic mutations in other oncogenes [91] and climaxed in the description of the genomic land- scape of melanoma [92]. While some of these discoveries translated into the identification of “druggable” biologic targets [93], the new insights into the genetic landscape of melanoma did not translate into reliable diagnostic methods for borderline lesions. Although molecular techniques such as fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) [94] or comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) [95] have been used to better classify borderline lesions such as Spitz tumors, they remain auxiliary techniques, requiring an integration with clinical and dermoscopic observations as well as with conventional pathology[96]. The recent hype associated with AI and deep learning in image based diagnostic medicine did not leave dermato- pathology untouched [97]. Using random crops of digitized whole slide scans, Hekler et al showed that an algorithm trained by deep learning was capable off differentiating mel- anoma from nevi as accurate as pathologists [98]. It is, how- ever, currently unknown how such algorithms will perform in the everyday practice. Summary and Interpretation There can be no doubt that the clinical, dermatoscopic, and histopathologic criteria for the diagnosis of melanoma changed significantly over time. New inventions such as dermoscopy, TBP, and new developments in the field of AI and molecular medicine continuously modify the way we diagnose melanocytic proliferations. These developments in conjunction with increased public awareness shifted the land- scape of melanoma diagnosis towards an increased detection of borderline lesions, especially with early melanomas. In a few decades we passed from an era of significant underdi- agnosis to overdiagnosis. By overdiagnosis we refer to the inflation of the diagnosis of in situ or microinvasive melano- mas with unknown prognostic significance. The undesired consequences of overdiagnosis should not be taken lightly. Apart from putting a significant financial burden on health care systems, overdiagnosis is associated with increased anxiety and morbidity of affected individuals. However, the recent suggestion of Welch and coworkers, that we should stop performing biopsies for lesions smaller than 6 mm, indicates lack of knowledge of current diagnostic techniques such as dermatoscopy. Some, albeit not all melanomas, can be diagnosed with confidence by dermatoscopy even when they are smaller than 6 mm (Figure 1). If early recognition of melanoma translates into improved survival is still a matter of debate. This question is not easy to answer. It would demand a randomized controlled trial with 2 arms. In 1 arm all lesions smaller than 6 mm that can be identified as melanomas by dermoscopy would be excised, in the other arm these lesions would be left alone until they reach the size of 6 mm. Since such a trial has not been performed and will not be completed in the near future, we have to rely on indirect evidence such as invasion thickness. It is also true that early recognition has become a business. Feeding the business demands that the melanoma epidemic is constantly rising. However, to attribute the recent decline of melanoma mortality solely to the invention of new thera- pies is a slap in the face of all clinicians who dedicated their work to early recognition. Dermatologists or primary care clinicians, who work on the forefront of early diagnosis, are not greedy businessmen who stir up and exploit anxiety only for their own profit, in the same way as basic researchers and the pharmaceutical industry, who invent and develop new treatments against cancer, are not altruistic cure-alls. Instead of turning back the wheel of time and ignoring the innovations of the last 30 years the inflated melanoma epidemic is best tackled otherwise. First, like any other diag- nostic technique dermatoscopy needs training and expertise and it can have undesired side effects if used by inexperienced users. Better training will produce better dermatoscopists, who know the limitations of the technique and will make better decisions. If used appropriately by sufficiently trained and experienced clinicians, dermatoscopy will reduce and not inflate the number of excisions and biopsies. Second, pathologists who sign out melanocytic lesions need specific training in clinical dermatology. They need to be aware that borderline lesions are best diagnosed with an integrated approach taking into account clinical, dermatoscopic and, in some cases, also molecular findings. Third, clinicians and pathologist should not be paranoid of missing a melanoma. Overdiagnosis should be as undesirable as underdiagnosis. In some parts of the world vulnerability to malpractice lawsuits leads to over anxiousness, which leads to excessively low thresholds and overdiagnosis. Forth, we need a shift of policy with regards to incentives. Reimbursements for monitoring techniques such as TBP or digital dermatoscopy should be in the range of excisions. Reimbursement of clinicians, who need a disproportionally large number of biopsies to detect one melanoma, should be capped. Fifth, slides of pathology labs with a disproportionally large number of melanoma diagnoses should be reviewed by an expert panel. If the panel concludes that the threshold for melanoma diagnosis is below current standards, pathologists should be offered retraining. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S 7 I acknowledge that some of these suggestions will be unpopular among dermatologists and pathologists. There is, however, no other way to restore the trust in the accuracy of melanoma diagnosis. Without this trust, all efforts directed towards early recognition of melanoma will be in vain. References 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70. DOI:10.3322/caac.21590. 2. Elwood JM, Jopson J. Melanoma and sun exposure: an overview of published studies. International journal of cancer. 1997;73. DOI:10.1002/(sici)1097-0215(19971009)73:2<198::aid- ijc6>3.0.co;2-r. 3. Hocker T, Tsao H. Ultraviolet radiation and melanoma: a sys- tematic review and analysis of reported sequence variants. Hum Mutat. 2007;28. DOI:10.1002/humu.20481. 4. Whiteman DC, Whiteman CA, Green AC. Childhood sun exposure as a risk factor for melanoma: a systematic review of epidemiologic studies. Cancer Causes Control. 2001;12. DOIi:10.1023/a:1008980919928. 5. Shaikh WR, Dusza SW, Weinstock MA, Oliveria SA, Geller AC, Halpern AC. Melanoma Thickness and Survival Trends in the United States, 1989 to 2009. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;108. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djv294. 6. Olsen CM, Green AC, Pandeya N, Whiteman DC. Trends in Melanoma Incidence Rates in Eight Susceptible Populations through 2015. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139. DOI:10.1016/j. jid.2018.12.006. 7. Welch HG, Mazer BL, Adamson AS. The Rapid Rise in Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnoses. N Engl J Med. 2021;384: 72–79. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb2019760. 8. Nufer KL, Raphael AP, Soyer HP. Dermoscopy and Overdiagnosis of Melanoma In Situ. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154. DOI:10.1001/ jamadermatol.2017.6448. 9. Kutzner H, Jutzi TB, Krahl D, Krieghoff-Henning EI, Heppt MV, Hekler A, et al. Overdiagnosis of melanoma - causes, consequenc- es and solutions. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2020;18. DOI:10.1111/ ddg.14233. 10. Friedman RJ, Rigel DS. The clinical features of malignant mel- anoma. Dermatol Clin. 1985;3. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/3830490/ 11. Rigel DS, Russak J, Friedman R. The evolution of melanoma di- agnosis: 25 years beyond the ABCDs. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60. DOI:10.3322/caac.20074. 12. Mackie RM, Doherty VR. Seven-point checklist for melanoma. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1991;16. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2230.1991. tb00329.x. 13. Keefe M, Dick DC, Wakeel RA. A study of the value of the seven-point checklist in distinguishing benign pigment- ed lesions from melanoma. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1990;15. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2230.1990.tb02064.x. 14. Nachbar F, Stolz W, Merkle T, Cognetta AB, Vogt T, Landthaler M, et al. The ABCD rule of dermatoscopy. High prospective value in the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1994;30: 551–559. DOI: 10.1016/S0190- 9622(94)70061-3. 15. Argenziano G, Fabbrocini G, Carli P, De Giorgi V, Sammarco E, Delfino M. Epiluminescence microscopy for the diagnosis of doubtful melanocytic skin lesions. Comparison of the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy and a new 7-point checklist based on pattern analysis. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134: 1563–1570. DOI: 10.1001/ archderm.134.12.1563. 16. Ackerman AB. No one should die of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985;12: 115–116. DOI: 10.1016/S0190- 9622(85)80242-5. 17. Koga H, Saida T. Revised 3-step dermoscopic algorithm for the management of acral melanocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147: 741–743. DOI: 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.136. 18. Benati E, Ribero S, Longo C, Piana S, Puig S, Carrera C, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic clues to differentiate pigmented nail bands: an International Dermoscopy Society study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31. DOI:10.1111/jdv.13991. 19. Abbasi NR, Shaw HM, Rigel DS, Friedman RJ, McCarthy WH, Osman I, et al. Early diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma: re- visiting the ABCD criteria. JAMA. 2004;292. DOI:10.1001/ jama.292.22.2771. 20. Merten JW, Hamadi HY, King JL. Cancer Risk Perceptions Among People Who Check Their Skin for Skin Cancer: Results from the 2017 U.S. Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Cancer Educ. 2020 [cited 25 Apr 2021]. DOI:10.1007/s13187- 020-01880-5. 21. Paul E, Henkelmann A, Bödeker RH. [Growth dynamics and histogenesis of malignant melanomas based on anamnestic data]. Z Hautkr. 1988;63. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/3407262/ 22. Slue WE. Total body photography for melanoma surveillance. N Y State J Med. 1992;92. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/1488206/ 23. Halpern AC. Total body skin imaging as an aid to melanoma detection. Semin Cutan Med Surg. 2003;22. DOI:10.1053/ sder.2003.50000. 24. Feit NE, Dusza SW, Marghoob AA. Melanomas detected with the aid of total cutaneous photography. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150. DOI:10.1111/j.0007-0963.2004.05892.x. 25. Deinlein T, Michor C, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Schmid-Zalaudek K, Fink-Puches R. The importance of total-body photography and sequential digital dermatoscopy for monitoring patients at increased melanoma risk. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2020;18. DOI:10.1111/ddg.14158. 26. Ji-Xu A, Dinnes J, Matin RN. Total body photography for the diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2020. DOI:10.1111/bjd.19759. 27. Kittler H. Total body photography for secondary prevention of melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2021. DOI:10.1111/bjd.20058. 28. Grob JJ, Bonerandi JJ. The “ugly duckling” sign: identification of the common characteristics of nevi in an individual as a basis for melanoma screening. Archives of dermatology. 1998. pp. 103–104. DOI: 10.1001/archderm.134.1.103-a. 29. Argenziano G, Catricalà C, Ardigo M, Buccini P, De Simone P, Eibenschutz L, et al. Dermoscopy of patients with multiple nevi: Improved management recommendations using a comparative diagnostic approach. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147: 46–49. DOI: 10.1001/archdermatol.2010.389. 30. Soenksen LR, Kassis T, Conover ST, Marti-Fuster B, Birkenfeld JS, Tucker-Schwartz J, et al. Using deep learning for dermatol- ogist-level detection of suspicious pigmented skin lesions from wide-field images. Sci Transl Med. 2021;13. DOI:10.1126/sci- translmed.abb3652. 8 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S 31. Pehamberger H, Steiner A, Wolff K. In vivo epiluminescence microscopy of pigmented skin lesions. I. Pattern analysis of pig- mented skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;17: 571–583. DOI: 10.1016/S0190-9622(87)70239-4. 32. Menzies SW. An Atlas of Surface Microscopy of Pigmented Skin Lesions: Dermoscopy. McGraw Hill Professional; 2003. 33. Henning JS, Dusza SW, Wang SQ, Marghoob AA, Rabinovitz HS, Polsky D, et al. The CASH (color, architecture, symmetry, and homogeneity) algorithm for dermoscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56: 45–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2006.09.003. 34. Rosendahl C, Tschandl P, Cameron A, Kittler H. Diagnostic accuracy of dermatoscopy for melanocytic and nonmelanocytic pigmented lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64: 1068–1073. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.03.039. 35. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Diagnostic ac- curacy of dermoscopy. Lancet Oncol. 2002;3: 159–165. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(02)00679-4. 36. Bafounta ML, Beauchet A, Aegerter P, Saiag P. Is dermoscopy (epiluminescence microscopy) useful for the diagnosis of mela- noma? Results of a meta-analysis using techniques adapted to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137. DOI:10.1001/archderm.137.10.1343. 37. Vestergaard ME, Macaskill P, Holt PE, Menzies SW. Dermosco- py 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. DOI:10.1111/j.1365- 2133.2008.08713.x. 38. Argenziano G, Soyer HP, Chimenti S, Talamini R, Corona R, Sera F, et al. Dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions: results of a con- sensus meeting via the Internet. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;48: 679–693. DOI: d10.1067/mjd.2003.281. 39. Han B, Hur K, Ohn J, Lim SS, Mun JH. Acral lentiginous mela- noma in situ: dermoscopic features and management strategy. Sci Rep. 2020;10. DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-77425-z. 40. Lallas A, Kyrgidis A, Koga H, Moscarella E, Tschandl P, Apal- la Z, et al. The BRAAFF checklist: a new dermoscopic algo- rithm for diagnosing acral melanoma. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173. DOI:10.1111/bjd.14045. 41. Saida T, Koga H, Uhara H. Key points in dermoscopic differenti- ation between early acral melanoma and acral nevus. J Dermatol. 2011;38. DOI:10.1111/j.1346-8138.2010.01174.x. 42. Schiffner R, Schiffner-Rohe J, Vogt T, Landthaler M, Wlotzke U, Cognetta AB, et al. Improvement of early recognition of lentigo maligna using dermatoscopy. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000;42. DOI:10.1016/s0190-9622(00)90005-7. 43. Lallas A, Lallas K, Tschandl P, Kittler H, Apalla Z, Longo C, et al. The dermoscopic inverse approach significantly improves the accuracy of human readers for lentigo maligna diagnosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.06.085. 44. Tschandl P, Rosendahl C, Kittler H. Dermatoscopy of flat pig- mented facial lesions. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015;29. DOI:10.1111/jdv.12483. 45. Menzies SW, Kreusch J, Byth K, Pizzichetta MA, Marghoob A, Braun R, et al. Dermoscopic evaluation of amelanotic and hy- pomelanotic melanoma. Arch Dermatol. 2008;144. DOI:10.1001/ archderm.144.9.1120. 46. Pizzichetta MA, Talamini R, Stanganelli I, Puddu P, Bono R, Argenziano G, et al. Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanoma: clinical and dermoscopic features. Br J Dermatol. 2004;150. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2004.05928.x. 47. Menzies SW, Moloney FJ, Byth K, Avramidis M, Argenziano G, Zalaudek I, et al. Dermoscopic evaluation of nodular mela- noma. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149. DOI:10.1001/jamaderma- tol.2013.2466. 48. Pizzichetta MA, Kittler H, Stanganelli I, Bono R, Cavicchini S, De Giorgi V, et al. Pigmented nodular melanoma: the predictive value of dermoscopic features using multivariate analysis. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173. DOI:10.1111/bjd.13861. 49. Blum A, Simionescu O, Argenziano G, Braun R, Cabo H, Eichhorn A, et al. Dermoscopy of pigmented lesions of the mucosa and the mucocutaneous junction: results of a multicenter study by the In- ternational Dermoscopy Society (IDS). Arch Dermatol. 2011;147. DOI:10.1001/archdermatol.2011.155. 50. Braun RP, Baran R, Le Gal FA, Dalle S, Ronger S, Pandolfi R, et al. Diagnosis and management of nail pigmentations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;56. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2006.12.021. 51. Thomas L, Dalle S. Dermoscopy provides useful information for the management of melanonychia striata. Dermatol Ther. 2007;20. DOI:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2007.00106.x. 52. Ronger S, Touzet S, Ligeron C, Balme B, Viallard AM, Barrut D, et al. Dermoscopic examination of nail pigmentation. Arch Der- matol. 2002;138. DOI:10.1001/archderm.138.10.1327. 53. Starace M, Alessandrini A, Brandi N, Piraccini BM. Use of Nail Dermoscopy in the Management of Melanonychia: Review. Dermatology practical & conceptual. 2019;9. DOI:10.5826/ dpc.0901a10. 54. Jaimes N, Marghoob AA, Rabinovitz H, Braun RP, Cameron A, Rosendahl C, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic characteristics of melanomas on nonfacial chronically sun-damaged skin. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1117. 55. Bono A, Bartoli C, Baldi M, Moglia D, Tomatis S, Tragni G, et al. Micro-melanoma detection. A clinical study on 22 cases of melanoma with a diameter equal to or less than 3 mm. Tumori. 2004;90. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15143985/ 56. Bono A, Tolomio E, Trincone S, Bartoli C, Tomatis S, Carbone A, et al. Micro-melanoma detection: a clinical study on 206 consecutive cases of pigmented skin lesions with a diameter. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07396.x. 57. Rosendahl C, Cameron A, Bulinska A, Harding-Smith D, Weedon D. Embryology of a melanoma? A case report with speculation based on dermatoscopic and histologic evidence. Dermatology practical & conceptual. 2012;2. DOI:10.5826/dpc.0204a08. 58. Inskip M, Magee J, Weedon D, Rosendahl C. When algorithms falter: a case report of a very small melanoma excised due to the dermatoscopic “ugly duckling” sign. Dermatology practical & conceptual. 2013;3. DOI:10.5826/dpc.0302a09. 59. Argenziano G, Cerroni L, Zalaudek I, Staibano S, Hofmann-Wel- lenhof R, Arpaia N, et al. Accuracy in melanoma detection: a 10-year multicenter survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2011.07.019. 60. Babino G, Lallas A, Agozzino M, Alfano R, Apalla Z, Brancaccio G, et al. Melanoma diagnosed on digital dermoscopy moni- toring: A side-by-side image comparison is needed to improve early detection. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020. DOI:10.1016/j. jaad.2020.07.013. 61. Tschandl P, Hofmann L, Fink C, Kittler H, Haenssle HA. Mela- nomas vs. nevi in high-risk patients under long-term monitoring with digital dermatoscopy: do melanomas and nevi already differ at baseline? J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31: 972–977. DOI. 10.1111/jdv.14065. Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S 9 62. Jaimes N, Dusza SW, Quigley EA, Braun RP, Puig S, Malvehy J, et al. Influence of time on dermoscopic diagnosis and manage- ment. Australas J Dermatol. 2013;54: 96–104. DOI: 10.1111/ ajd.12001. 63. Skvara H, Teban L, Fiebiger M, Binder M, Kittler H. Limitations of dermoscopy in the recognition of melanoma. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141: 155–160. DOI: 10.1001/archderm.141.2.155. 64. Kittler H, Pehamberger H, Wolff K, Binder M. Follow-up of me- lanocytic 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. DOI: 10.1067/mjd.2000.107504. 65. Kittler H, Binder M. Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital dermoscopy: risks and benefits. Archives of dermatology. 2002. p. 1379. DOI: 10.1001/archderm.138.10.1379. 66. Salerni G, Terán T, Puig S, Malvehy J, Zalaudek I, Argenziano G, et al. Meta-analysis of digital dermoscopy follow-up of melano- cytic skin lesions: a study on behalf of the International Dermos- copy Society. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2013;27: 805–814. DOI: 10.1111/jdv.12032. 67. Menzies SW, Emery J, Staples M, Davies S, McAvoy B, Fletch- er J, et al. Impact of dermoscopy and short-term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging for the management of pigment- ed lesions in primary care: a sequential intervention trial. Br J Dermatol. 2009;161: 1270–1277. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2133.2009.09374.x. 68. Haenssle HA, Krueger U, Vente C, Thoms K-M, Bertsch HP, Zutt M, et al. Results from an observational trial: digital epilu- minescence 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. DOI. 10.1038/sj.jid.5700119. 69. Carli P. Identification of Incipient Tumors by Means of Se- quential Dermoscopy Imaging: A New Way to Inflate the “Ep- idemic” of Melanoma? Archives of Dermatology. 2007. p. 799. DOI:10.1001/archderm.143.6.805-a. 70. Haenssle HA, Winkler JK, Fink C, Toberer F, Enk A, Stolz W, et al. Skin lesions of face and scalp - Classification by a market-ap- proved convolutional neural network in comparison with 64 der- matologists. Eur J Cancer. 2021;144: 192–199. DOI: 10.1016/j. ejca.2020.11.034. 71. Tschandl P, Codella N, Akay BN, Argenziano G, Braun RP, Cabo H, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of human readers versus machine-learning algorithms for pigmented skin lesion classification: an open, web-based, international, diagnostic study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20: 938–947. DOI. 10.1016/S1470- 2045(19)30333-X. 72. Tschandl P, Rinner C, Apalla Z, Argenziano G, Codella N, Halp- ern A, et al. Human-computer collaboration for skin cancer recognition. Nat Med. 2020. DOI:10.1038/s41591-020-0942-0. 73. Winkler JK, Sies K, Fink C, Toberer F, Enk A, Deinlein T, et al. Melanoma recognition by a deep learning convolutional neu- ral network-Performance in different melanoma subtypes and localisations. Eur J Cancer. 2020;127: 21–29. DOI: 10.1016/j. ejca.2019.11.020. 74. Haenssle HA, Fink C, Schneiderbauer R, Toberer F, Buhl T, Blum A, et al. Man against machine: diagnostic performance of a deep learning convolutional neural network for dermoscopic melano- ma recognition in comparison to 58 dermatologists. Ann Oncol. 2018;29: 1836–1842. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy166. 75. Brinker TJ, Hekler A, Enk AH, Klode J, Hauschild A, Berking C, et al. Deep learning outperformed 136 of 157 dermatologists in a head-to-head dermoscopic melanoma image classifica- tion task. Eur J Cancer. 2019;113: 47–54. DOI: 10.1016/j. ejca.2019.04.001. 76. Ackerman LV. Malignant melanoma of the skin; clinical and pathologic analysis of 75 cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 1948;18: 602–624. DOI. 10.1093/ajcp/18.8.602. 77. Allen AC, Spitz S. Malignant melanoma; a clinicopathological analysis of the criteria for diagnosis and prognosis. Cancer. 1953;6: 1–45.DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(195301)6:1<1::AID-CN- CR2820060102>3.0.CO;2-C. 78. Mihm MC, Clark WH, From L. The clinical diagnosis, classifi- cation and histogenetic concepts of the early stages of cutaneous malignant melanomas. N Engl J Med. 1971;284. DOI: 10.1056/ NEJM197105132841907. 79. Clark WH, From L, Bernardino EA, Mihm MC. The histogenesis and biologic behavior of primary human malignant melanomas of the skin. Cancer Res. 1969;29. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/5773814/ 80. Breslow A. Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 1970;172. DOI:10.1097/00000658-197011000-00017. 81. Breslow A. Tumor thickness in evaluating prognosis of cutane- ous melanoma. Ann Surg. 1978;187. DOI:10.1097/00000658- 197804000-00020. 82. Price NM, Rywlin AM, Ackerman AB. Histologic criteria for the diagnosis of superficial spreading malignant melanoma: formulated on the basis of proven metastatic lesions. Cancer. 1976;38. DOI:10.1002/1097-0142(197612)38:6<2434::aid-cn- cr2820380631>3.0.co;2-n. 83. N I H C o n s e n s u s c o n f e r e n c e . D i a g n o s i s a n d t r e a t m e n t o f e a r l y m e l a n o m a . JA M A . 1 9 9 2 ; 2 6 8 . D O I : 1 0 . 1 0 0 1 / jama.1992.03490100112037. 84. Ferrara G, Argenziano G, Soyer HP, D’Argenio P, Carli P, Cerroni L, et al. Histopathologic interobserver agreement on the diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions with equivo- cal dermoscopic features: a pilot study. Tumori. 2000;86. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11218183/ DOI: 10.1177/030089160008600602. 85. Lodha S, Saggar S, Celebi JT, Silvers DN. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of difficult melanocytic neoplasms in the clinical setting. J Cutan Pathol. 2008;35.DOI:10.1111/j.1600- 0560.2007.00970.x. 86. Shoo BA, Sagebiel RW, Kashani-Sabet M. Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma at a melanoma re- ferral center. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62. DOI:10.1016/j. jaad.2009.09.043. 87. Elmore JG, Barnhill RL, Elder DE, Longton GM, Pepe MS, Reisch LM, et al. Pathologists’ diagnosis of invasive melanoma and me- lanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study. BMJ. 2017;357. DOI:10.1136/bmj.j2813. 88. Gerami P, Busam K, Cochran A, Cook MG, Duncan LM, El- der DE, et al. Histomorphologic assessment and interobserver diagnostic reproducibility of atypical spitzoid melanocytic neo- plasms with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2014;38. DOI:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000198. 89. Pusiol T, Morichetti D, Piscioli F, Zorzi MG. Theory and practi- cal application of superficial atypical melanocytic proliferations of uncertain significance (SAMPUS) and melanocytic tumours of 10 Review | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2021; 11(S1): e2021163S uncertain malignant potential (MELTUMP) terminology: experi- ence with second opinion consultation. Pathologica. 2012;104. Accessed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22953503/ 90. Davies H, Bignell GR, Cox C, Stephens P, Edkins S, Clegg S, et al. Mutations of the BRAF gene in human cancer. Nature. 2002;417. DOI:10.1038/nature00766. 91. Curtin JA, Fridlyand J, Kageshita T, Patel HN, Busam KJ, Kutzner H, et al. Distinct sets of genetic alterations in melanoma. N Engl J Med. 2005;353. DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa050092. 92. Hayward NK, Wilmott JS, Waddell N, Johansson PA, Field MA, Nones K, et al. Whole-genome landscapes of major melanoma subtypes. Nature. 2017;545. DOI:10.1038/nature22071. 93. Karasarides M, Chiloeches A, Hayward R, Niculescu-Duvaz D, Scanlon I, Friedlos F, et al. B-RAF is a therapeutic target in melanoma. Oncogene. 2004;23. DOI:10.1038/sj.onc.1207785. 94. Gerami P, Scolyer RA, Xu X, Elder DE, Abraham RM, Fullen D, et al. Risk assessment for atypical spitzoid melanocytic neoplasms using FISH to identify chromosomal copy number aberrations. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37. DOI:10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182753de6. 95. Miedema J, Andea AA. Through the looking glass and what you find there: making sense of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis. Mod Pathol. 2020;33. DOI:10.1038/s41379-020-0490-7. 96. Ferrara G, Argenyi Z, Argenziano G, Cerio R, Cerroni L, Di Blasi A, et al. The influence of clinical information in the histopatho- logic diagnosis of melanocytic skin neoplasms. PLoS One. 2009;4. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0005375. 97. Brinker TJ, Schmitt M, Krieghoff-Henning EI, Barnhill R, Beltra- minelli H, Braun SA, et al. Diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence for histologic melanoma recognition compared to 18 international expert pathologists. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021. DOI:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.02.009. 98. Hekler A, Utikal JS, Enk AH, Solass W, Schmitt M, Klode J, et al. Deep learning outperformed 11 pathologists in the classification of histopathological melanoma images. Eur J Cancer. 2019;118: 91–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.06.012. 1-Indice 3-1797