Pattern Analysis of Benign and Malignant Atypical Melanocytic Skin Lesions of Palms and Soles: Variations of Dermoscopic Features According to Anatomic Site and Personal Experience

Abstract

Background: The differential diagnosis of atypical melanocytic skin lesions localized on palms and soles represents a diagnostic challenge: indeed, this spectrum encompasses atypical nevi (AN) and early-stage melanomas (EN) displaying overlapping clinical and dermoscopic features. This often generates unnecessary excisions or delayed diagnosis. Investigations to date were mostly carried out in specific populations, focusing either on acrolentiginous melanomas or morphologically typical acquired nevi. Aims: To investigate the dermoscopic features of atypical melanocytic palmoplantar skin lesions (aMPPLs) as evaluated by variously skilled dermatologists and assess their concordance; to investigate the variations in dermoscopic appearance according to precise location on palms and soles; to detect the features with the strongest association with malignancy/benignity in each specific site. Methods: A dataset of 471 aMPPLs—excised in the suspect of malignancy—was collected from 10 European Centers, including a standardized dermoscopic picture (17×) and lesion/patient metadata. An anatomical classification into 17 subareas was considered, along with an anatomo-functional classification considering pressure/friction, (4 macroareas). A total of 156 participants (95 with less than 5 years of experience in dermoscopy and 61 with ≥than 5 years) from 17 countries performed a blinded tele-dermoscopic pattern analysis over 20 cases through a specifically realized web platform. Results: A total of 37,440 dermoscopic evaluations were obtained over 94 (20%) EM and 377 (80%) AN. The areas with the highest density of EM compared to AN were the heel (40.3% EM/aMPPLs) of the sole and the “fingers area” (33%EM/aMPPLs) of the palm, both characterized by intense/chronic traumatism/friction. Globally, the recognition rates of 12 dermoscopic patterns were non statistically different between 95 dermatology residents and 61 specialists: aMPPLs in the plantar arch appeared to be the most “difficult” to diagnose, the parallel ridge pattern was poorly recognized and irregular/regular fibrillar patterns often misinterpreted. Regarding the aMPPL of the “heel area”, the parallel furrow pattern (p = 0.014) and lattice-like pattern (p = 0.001) significantly discriminated benign cases, while asymmetry of colors (p = 0.002) and regression structures (p = 0.025) malignant ones. In aMPPLs of the “plantar arch”, the lattice-like pattern (p = 0.012) was significant for benignity and asymmetry of structures, asymmetry of colors, regression structures, or blue-white veil for malignancy. In palmar lesions, no data were significant in the discrimination between malignant and benign aMPPLs. Conclusions: This study highlights that (i) the pattern analysis of aMPPLs is challenging for both experienced and novice dermoscopists; (ii) the histological distribution varies according to the anatomo-functional classification; and (iii) different dermoscopic patterns are able to discriminate malignant from benign aMPPLs within specific plantar and palmar areas.