Short Term Monitoring
every three months or less
- Is performed for lesions, that because of history of appearance, cannot be deemed benign with absolute certainty at the initial examination.
- It enables early detection of fearless melanomas while decreasing the need of excision of clinically suspicious benign lesions.
- Any morphologic change seen at three months from baseline (short-term monitoring) requires excision.
|Significant change||Non-significant change|
|Any change other than non-significant changes||Global change in pigmentation|
|Loss or appearance of milia-like cysts|
- Lesions remaining unchanged at 2-5-4.5 months are mostly confirmed benign on further follow-up.
Non-lentigo maligna type lesions
- Lesions observed to change during the short-term interval of 2.5-4.5 months.
Lentigo maligna Lesions
- The changes in lentigo maligna melanoma can develop very gradually and thus a longer follow-up interval is necessary to detect some of these melanomas. A monitored interval between 6-12 months is recommended.
- An Atlas of Dermoscopy, Second Edition. Marghoob A. et al. CRC Press; 2012.
- Altamura, D., Avramidis, M. & Menzies, S.W., 2008, Assessment of the optimal interval for and sensitivity of short-term sequential digital dermoscopy moni- toring for the diagnosis of melanoma. Arch Dermatol, 144, 502–6.
- Altamura, D., Zalaudek, I., Sera, F., et al., 2007, Dermoscopic changes in acral melanocytic nevi during digital follow-up. Arch Dermatol, 143, 1372–6.
- Argenziano, G., Zalaudek, I. & Ferrara, G., 2007, Fast-growing and slow-growing melanomas. Arch Dermatol, 143, 802–3; author reply 803–4.
- Banky, J.P., Kelly, J.W., English, D.R., Yeatman, J.M. & Dowling, J.P., 2005, Incidence of new and changed nevi and melanomas detected using baseline images and dermoscopy in patients at high risk for melanoma. Arch Dermatol, 141, 998–1006.
- Bauer, J., Blum, A., Strohhäcker, U. & Garbe, C., 2005, Surveillance of patients at high risk for cutaneous malignant melanoma using digital dermoscopy. Br J Dermatol, 152, 87–92.
- Dawid, M., Pehamberger, H., Wolff, K., Binder, M. & Kittler, H., 2002, Evaluation of the ability of patients to identify enlarging melanocytic nevi. Arch Dermatol, 138, 984–5. Fuller, S.R., Bowen, G.M., Tanner, B., Florell, S.R. & Grossman, D., 2007, Digital dermoscopic monitoring of atypical nevi in patients at risk for melanoma. Dermatol Surg, 33, 1198–206; discussion 1205–6.
- Haenssle, H.A., Krueger, U., Vente, C., et al., 2006, Results from an observational trial: digital epiluminescence microscopy follow-up of atypical nevi increases the sensitivity and the chance of success of conventional dermoscopy in detecting melanoma. J Invest Dermatol, 126, 980–5.
- Kittler, H. & Binder, M., 2001, Risks and benefits of sequential imaging of melanocytic skin lesions in patients with multiple atypical nevi. Arch Dermatol, 137, 1590–5.
- Kittler, H. & Binder, M., 2002, Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital dermoscopy: risks and benefits. Archives of Dermatology, 138, 1379.
- Kittler, H., Pehamberger, H., Wolff, K. & Binder, M., 2000a, Follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions with digital epiluminescence microscopy: patterns of modifications observed in early melanoma, atypical nevi, and common nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol, 43, 467–76.
- Kittler, H., Seltenheim, M., Dawid, M., et al., 2000b, Frequency and characteristics of enlarging common melanocytic nevi. Arch Dermatol, 136, 316–20.
- Menzies, S.W., Gutenev, A., Avramidis, M., Batrac, A. & McCarthy, W.H., 2001, Short-term digital surface microscopic monitoring of atypical or changing mela- nocytic lesions. Arch Dermatol, 137, 1583–9.
- Robinson, J. & Nickoloff, B., 2004, Digital epiluminescence microscopy monitoring of high-risk patients. Arch Dermatol, 140, 49–56.
- Zalaudek, I., Karin, S., Marghoob, A., et al., 2011, Frequency of dermoscopic nevus subtypes by age and body site: a Cross-sectional Study. Arch Dermatol, 147, 663–70.