Melanomas have been designated as small melanomas or micromelanomas according to their long-axis diameter (<6 mm and ≤3 mm, respectively).1-3 Because small-diameter melanomas also have the potential to metastasize, particularly if nodular, early diagnosis can be highly rewarding. Deep melanomas with small diameters may have the same potential for metastasis as large-diameter melanomas. In this context, dermoscopy, digital dermoscopic monitoring, and total-body photography are useful in clinical practice. However, these techniques are of limited utility for small, dermoscopic feature–poor melanomas. Conversely, less than 10% of changing lesions, which are spotted via digital dermoscopic surveillance, turn out to be melanomas; therefore, simply removing all changing lesions may result in many unnecessary excisions of benign lesions.4
In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is an advanced technique that allows recognition of the architectural and cellular details of pigmented lesions. Reflectance confocal microscopy has the potential to reduce the rate of unnecessary excisions and to diminish the risk for missing a melanoma.5-7 In meta-analyses, RCM sensitivity was reported as 90% to 93% and specificity was reported as 78% to 82% in detecting melanoma.8,9
We describe a case that highlights the potential role of RCM in the diagnosis of small-diameter melanomas.
FIGURE 1. A dark brown–gray papule 10 months after the initial presentation.
Case Report
A 57-year-old man with Fitzpatrick skin type III presented to the dermato-oncology unit for evaluation of multiple nevi. He was otherwise healthy and denied a history of skin cancer. Total-body skin examination with dermoscopy was performed, and several mildly atypical lesions were identified. We decided to perform digital dermoscopic monitoring. The patient’s 6-month monitoring appointment had been scheduled, but he did not arrive for the follow-up visit until 10 months after the initial examination. A lesion on the left arm, which initially was 1.5 mm in diameter, had enlarged. It was now a dark brown–gray papule with a 2.5-mm diameter (Figure 1). Dermoscopy revealed grayish globules/dots at the center of the lesion, reticular gray-blue areas, and few milialike cysts; at the periphery, a narrow rim of brownish delicate pigment network also was seen (Figure 2). The clinical and dermoscopic differential diagnosis was either an atypical nevus or an early melanoma. For a more precise diagnosis before excision, the lesion was evaluated with RCM, which takes 10 to 15 minutes to perform.
FIGURE 2. Dermoscopy showed central gray globules/dots, reticular grayblue areas, milialike cysts, and a peripheral brownish pigment network.
Under RCM at the epidermis level, there was a cobblestone pattern that showed a focus with mild disarrangement and few small, roundish, nucleated cells (Figure 3). A mosaic image, akin to low-magnification microscopy that enables overview of the entire lesion, at the level of the dermoepidermal junction (DEJ) showed an overall irregular meshwork pattern. Higher-magnification optical sections showed marked and diffuse (extending >10% of lesion area) architectural disorder with confluent junctional nests that were irregular to bizarre in shape and uneven in size and spacing as well as edged and nonedged papillae. At the superficial dermal level, atypical bright nucleated cells (>5 cells/mm2) were observed (Figure 4). Bright dots and/or plump bright cells within papillae also were observed. These RCM findings were highly suggestive for melanoma.
FIGURE 3. Reflectance confocal microscopy at the spinous layer of the epidermis, showing a cobblestone pattern with mild focal disarrangement and a few roundish nucleated cells.
Histopathology showed an asymmetric, junctional, lentiginous, and nested proliferation of atypical epithelioid melanocytes, with few melanocytes in a pagetoid spread. There were small nests of atypical epithelioid melanocytes at the superficial dermis extending to a depth of 0.3 mm. The atypical epithelioid melanocytes displayed angulated hyperchromatic nuclei with conspicuous nucleoli and dusty brown cytoplasm. There was notable inflammation and pigment incontinence at the dermis. There was no evidence of ulceration or mitosis at the dermal component. The diagnosis of a pT1a malignant melanoma was reported (Figure 5).
FIGURE 4. Architectural disorder with irregular junctional nests and nonedged papillae at the dermoepidermal junction as well as atypical bright nucleated cells in the superficial dermis (1×2 mm).
Comment
A small but enlarging dark gray papule with reticular gray-blue areas under dermoscopy in a 57-year-old man is obviously suspicious for melanoma. In daily practice, this type of small-diameter melanoma is difficult to diagnose with high confidence. We balance our aim to diagnose melanomas early with the need to reduce unnecessary excisions. Reflectance confocal microscopy may allow the clinician to arrive at the correct diagnosis and management decision with confidence before excision of the lesion.
FIGURE 5. A, Histopathology showed an asymmetric lesion with atypical melanocytes singly and in nests disposed both at the junction and superficial dermis as well as notable dermal inflammation (H&E, original magnification ×100). B, Higher magnification showed dermal and junctional nests with atypical epithelioid melanocytes (H&E, original magnification ×200).