Dermatology: Practical and Conceptual Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023249 1 Melanoma Over-diagnosis: Historical Perspective and the Path Forward Ashfaq A. Marghoob1 1 Memorial Sloan Kettering Skin Cancer Center, Hauppauge, New York, USA Citation: Marghoob AA. Melanoma Overdiagnosis: Historical Perspective and the Path Forward. Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023249. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5826/dpc.1304a249 Accepted: August 7, 2023; Published: October 2023 Copyright: ©2023 Marghoob. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial License (BY-NC-4.0), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/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: None. Corresponding Author: Ashfaq A. Marghoob, Memorial Sloan Kettering Skin Cancer Center 800 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, NY 11788; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center 530 East 74th Street, New York, NY 10021 E-mail: marghooa@mskcc.org Themes emerging from the two opinion pieces regarding melanoma over-diagnosis (MO) include: melanoma in situ (MMIS) is the main problem, technology will mitigate the problem, and harms of MO are trivial compared to its re- sulting overtreatment. To understand MO requires a historical perspective. Armed with evidence-based knowledge acquired in the 1970s showing that melanoma prognosis hinged primarily on tu- mor thickness, combined with the prevailing belief that pri- mary cutaneous melanoma, if left untreated, would steadily grow until it metastasizes and kills the patient, heralded ef- forts aimed at early detection [1]. Then in the 1980s Doctor Ackerman promoted the concept that the earliest form of melanoma is when the ‘malignancy’ is confined to the epi- dermis [2]. In his editorial, ‘No one should die of malignant melanoma’, he implored all physicians to learn the morpho- logic features of flat (in situ) melanomas [2]. The intersection of evidence-based data, belief systems and influential phy- sicians created the prevailing acceptance among clinicians, researchers, and epidemiologists that surveillance ought to save lives. And thus, the journey to detect melanoma as early as possible began. Investigations into the morphologic features of early melanoma gave rise to the ABCD mnemonic and the concept of the ‘ugly duckling sign” [3,4]. The re- alization that biology of lesions is a sensitive indicator of melanoma heralded the importance placed on identifying change [5]. Technological advances including the ability to obtain baseline clinical images to assist in more objectively iden- tify change led to use of baseline total body photographs [6]. Introduction of dermoscopy further enhanced our ability to identify otherwise difficult to detect melanomas including amelanotic and small diameter melanomas [7]. Today we have ever more sophisticated technology directed towards early melanoma detection including RCM, in vivo gene ex- pression profiling, and artificial intelligence. I agree with the authors of the opinion pieces that technology, if used appro- priately, will reduce unnecessary biopsies of nevi. However, any technology designed to detect melanoma cannot possi- bly reduce MO, as suggested by the authors. The aforementioned efforts have delivered on the request of finding early melanoma, including MMIS. The presence of countless studies published over the past five decades now permits us to apply our ‘retrospect-oscope’ and realize that major flaws existed in our belief system. We are now aware 2 Commentary | Dermatol Pract Concept. 2023;13(4):e2023249 that some melanomas can grow very slowly, that factors other than tumor thickness impact prognosis, that MMIS may not be the monster we imagined it to be [8-10]. Given all the newly acquired insights it should not be surprising that both MMIS and invasive melanoma are prone to over-diagnosis [11]. However, as stated by Olsen and Whiteman we are living a ‘tale of two epidemics’; one of potentially aggressive mela- noma and another of indolent melanoma and perhaps even ‘melanomas’ that are not cancer in the first place [12,13]. Within the indolent group, MMIS appears to be the low- est hanging fruit that can be studied with respect to MO, as alluded to by the authors of the two opinion pieces. How- ever, this should not be extrapolated to suggest that invasive MO is not a problem worthy of attention [14]. Furthermore, it should be underscored that over-diagnosis and overtreat- ment are two separate issues. The treatment of melanoma (based on our definition of what constitutes melanoma as a cancer) is dictated by trial outcomes. For example, invasive melanomas of yesteryear were over-treated by today stan- dards with excision margins of 5 cm and elective lymph node dissection. It will require us to accurately define what lesions constitute a cancer of melanocytes based on their actual biol- ogy, to better understand the growth dynamics of ‘indolent’ melanoma and designing therapeutic trials to investigate al- ternative management approaches for lentigo maligna and thin invasive melanomas. A point worth mentioning is that the harms from MO should never be trivialized. However, we should also not lose sight of the fact that lives have been saved because of our efforts directed towards early detection [15]. This raises the question of melanoma screening. Current epidemiological data does not support population-based melanoma screen- ing, but individual patients at high risk for melanoma in- cluding those with multiple large nevi, CDKN2A mutations, BAP1 mutations, among others will likely derive benefits from screening programs. So what are we to do? We must continue to strive to improve upon the current situation. We need to determine if MMIS is really a cancer, we need to investigate the fea- tures of MMIS that predict progression to bona fide invasive melanoma, we need to establish the clinical, histological, and molecular features that accurately differentiates indolent from aggressive disease. In addition, we need to improve on in vivo methods to increase not only sensitivity for melanoma detec- tion but more importantly specificity. Until we have a method akin to the Gleason scoring system for prostate cancer, we have no choice but to address lesions that look like melanoma on our patient’s skin and have no choice but to treat lesions diagnosed as melanoma. And on this we all agree. References 1. Breslow A. Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of in- vasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg. 1970;172(5):902-908. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-197011000 -00017. PMID: 5477666. PMCID: PMC1397358. 2. Ackerman AB. No one should die of malignant melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1985;12(1 Pt 1):115-116. DOI: 10.1016/s0190 -9622(85)80242-5. PMID: 3980788. 3. Friedman RJ, Rigel DS, Silverman MK, Kopf AW, Vossaert KA. Malignant melanoma in the 1990s: the continued importance of early detection and the role of physician examination and self-examination of the skin. CA Cancer J Clin. 1991;41(4): 201-226. DOI: 10.3322/canjclin.41.4.201. PMID: 2049635. 4. Grob JJ, Bonerandi JJ. The ‘ugly duckling’ sign: identification of the common characteristics of nevi in an individual as a basis for melanoma screening. Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(1):103-104. DOI: 10.1001/archderm.134.1.103-a. PMID: 9449921. 5. McGovern TW, Litaker MS. Clinical predictors of malignant pigmented lesions. A comparison of the Glasgow seven-point checklist and the American Cancer Society’s ABCDs of pig- mented lesions. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1992;18(1):22-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4725.1992.tb03296.x. PMID: 1740563. 6. Slue W, Kopf AW, Rivers JK. Total-body photographs of dysplastic nevi. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124(8):1239-1243. PMID: 3401028. 7. Rosendahl C, Cameron A, Bulinska A, Williamson R, Kittler H. Dermatoscopy of a minute melanoma. Australas J Dermatol. 2011;52(1):76-78. DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-0960.2010.00725.x. PMID: 21332701. 8. Argenziano G, Kittler H, Ferrara G, et al. Slow-growing melanoma: a dermoscopy follow-up study. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(2):267- 273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09416.x. PMID: 19785607. 9. Scolyer RA, Murali R, McCarthy SW, Thompson JF. Pathologic examination of sentinel lymph nodes from melanoma patients. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2008;25(2):100-111. DOI: 10.1053/j .semdp.2008.04.002. PMID: 18697713. 10. Menzies SW, Liyanarachchi S, Coates E, et al. Estimated risk of progression of lentigo maligna to lentigo maligna mela- noma. Melanoma Res. 2020;30(2):193-197. DOI: 10.1097 /CMR.0000000000000619. PMID: 31095041. 11. Welch HG, Mazer BL, Adamson AS. The Rapid Rise in Cutane- ous Melanoma Diagnoses. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(1):72-79. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb2019760. PMID: 33406334. 12. Olsen CM, Whiteman DC. Cutaneous Melanoma in White Americans: A  Tale  of  Two Epidemics. J Invest Dermatol. 2022;142(7):1765-1767. DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2021.12.031. PMID: 35109987. 13. National Cancer Institute. Melanoma in situ. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms /def/melanoma-in-situ, accessed on 14. Glasziou PP, Jones MA, Pathirana T, Barratt AL, Bell KJ. Estimat- ing the magnitude of cancer overdiagnosis in Australia. Med J Aust. 2020;212(4):163-168. DOI: 10.5694/mja2.50455. PMID: 31858624. PMCID: PMC7065073. 15. Kurtansky NR, Dusza SW, Halpern AC, et al. An Epidemio- logic Analysis of Melanoma Overdiagnosis in the United States, 1975-2017. J Invest Dermatol. 2022;142(7):1804-1811.e6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2021.12.003. PMID: 34902365. PMCID: PMC9187775.