Thin Amelanotic and Hypomelanotic Melanoma: Clinicopathological and Dermoscopic Features

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Amelanotic/hypomelanotic melanomas (AHMs) account for 2–8% of all cutaneous melanomas. Due to their clinical appearance and the lack of specific dermoscopic indicators, AHMs are challenging to diagnose, particularly in thinner cutaneous lesions. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinicopathological and dermoscopic features of thin AHMs. Identifying the baseline clinical–pathological features and dermoscopic aspects of thin AHMs is crucial to better understand this entity. Materials and Methods: We divided the AHM cohort into two groups based on Breslow thickness: thin (≤1.00 mm) and thick (>1.00 mm). This stratification helped identify any significant clinicopathological differences between the groups. For dermoscopic analysis, we employed the “pattern analysis” approach, which involves a simultaneous and subjective assessment of different criteria. Results: Out of the 2.800 melanomas analyzed for Breslow thickness, 153 were identified as AHMs. Among these, 65 patients presented with thin AHMs and 88 with thick AHMs. Red hair color and phototype II were more prevalent in patients with thin AHMs. The trunk was the most common anatomic site for thin AHMs. Patients with thin AHMs showed a higher number of multiple melanomas. Dermoscopic analysis revealed no significant difference between thin AHMs and thick AHMs, except for a more frequent occurrence of residual reticulum in thin AHMs. Conclusions: Thin AHMs typically affect individuals with lower phototypes and red hair color. These aspects can be related to the higher presence of pheomelanin, which provides limited protection against sun damage. This also correlates with the fact that the trunk, a site commonly exposed to intermittent sun exposure, is the primary anatomical location for thin AHMs. Multiple primary melanomas are more common in patients with thin AHMs, likely due to an intrinsic predisposition as well as greater periodic dermatologic follow-ups in this class of patients. Apart from the presence of residual reticulum, no other significant dermoscopic differences were observed, complicating the differential diagnosis between thin and thick AHMs based on dermoscopy alone.