Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Semiological Value of ABCDE Criteria in the Diagnosis of Cutaneous Pigmented TumorsThomas L.a · Tranchand P.a · Berard F.a · Secchi T.a · Colin C.b · Moulin G.a
aUnité de Dermatologie et bDépartement d’Informatique Médicale des Hospices Civils de Lyon, Hôpital de l’Hôtel-Dieu, Lyon, France
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the semiological value of the so-called ABCDE criteria in the differential diagnosis of pigmented tumors. Aside from the classical ABCD criteria, an E criterion for ‘enlargement’ is studied. Material and Methods: Records from melanoma patients were obtained from a melanoma database prospectively including patients treated for melanoma in our department since 1992; 460 files were found informative for this study. A prospective control group was established including 680 cases of benign pigmented tumors. All cases included in the study were histopathologically controlled in our dermatopathology unit. Records of ABCDE, i.e. corresponding to asymmetry, irregular borders, irregular coloration, diameter ≥6 mm and enlargement, were codified as present or absent in every case. Data were statistically compared for every individual criterion with the χ2 test and for the number of criteria present in melanoma versus other pigmented tumors with Student’s t test. Results: Significant differences were observed for all individual criteria (p <0.001) between melanomas and common nevi. Significant differences were also observed for B, C and E criteria between melanomas and atypical nevi. The sensitivity of the individual criteria for the diagnosis of melanoma was 57, 57, 65, 90 and 84% for ABCDE, respectively. The specificity of the individual criteria for the diagnosis of melanoma versus other pigmented tumors was 72, 71, 59, 63 and 90% for ABCDE, respectively. The number of criteria present was significatively different between common nevi (1.24 ± 1.26) and melanomas (3.53 ± 1.53; p <0.001) and between common nevi and atypical nevi (3.62 ± 0.83, p <0.001), but no significant difference was found between melanomas and atypical nevi. Sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of melanoma are 89.3 and 65.3% if 2 criteria are present. Sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of melanoma are 65.5 and 81% if 3 criteria are present. Conclusion: The so-called ABCD criteria have a good semiological value in the differential diagnosis of pigmented tumors. Addition of an E criterion for enlargement optimizes sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis.
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.