Article

Distribution of congenital melanocytic naevi and congenital naevus‐like naevi in a survey of 3406 Italian schoolchildren

Department of Epidemiology, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche ‘Mario Negri’, Milan, Italy
British Journal of Dermatology (Impact Factor: 4.1). 07/2008; 159(2):433 - 438. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08656.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background Scanty information is available on the prevalence of congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) and congenital naevus-like naevi (CNLN), particularly the small ones.Objectives To estimate the prevalence of CMN/CNLN in Italian schoolchildren, and to assess variations according to potential risk factors for melanoma.Methods We conducted a survey in 13 Italian areas on 3406 schoolchildren aged 12–17 years. Children were examined by dermatologists who assessed pigmentary traits and made a count of small (6–15 mm in diameter) and medium/large (> 15 mm) CMN/CNLN on 19 anatomical areas.Results Overall, 592 children (17·4%) had one or more CMN/CNLN. Prevalence of small CMN/CNLN was 16·1%, and that of medium/large CMN/CNLN was 1·8%. There was no difference between age groups and sexes. CMN/CNLN were more frequent in children with a higher number of common melanocytic naevi (multivariate odds ratio, OR = 7·1 for the highest vs. the lowest quartile), consistent in small (OR = 7·2) and medium/large CMN/CNLN (OR = 6·0). Family history of malignant melanoma (OR = 1·4) and personal history of diabetes (OR = 4·4) appeared to be directly, and sun exposure inversely associated with CMN/CNLN. No relation was evident between CMN/CNLN and pigmentary traits, anthropometric characteristics, dietary habits, freckles, sunburns, sunscreen use or history of selected diseases.Conclusions The association with family history of melanoma, the strong association with acquired melanocytic naevi, and the lack of association with pigmentary traits and sunburns suggest that CMN/CNLN may act as an independent risk marker for subjects at increased risk for cutaneous melanoma later in life.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Luigi Naldi, Aug 29, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
56 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The main selected articles in pediatric dermatology covered the following topics: development and maturation of the epidermal barrier in the neonate, iatrogenic events in the neonatal ICU, diagnostic value of minor birthmarks, complications, risk factors and treatment of hemangiomas, coagulopathy in venous malformations, epidemiology and dermoscopy of congenital and acquired melanocytic nevi in childhood, growth of the body surface area, new pathogenic concepts and treatment in atopic dermatitis, the impact of filaggrin deficiency, hereditary factors in Kawasaki disease, severe and drug resistant cases, management of juvenile dermatomyositis, treatment of childhood psoriasis with biologics, the new classification of epidermolysis bullosa and therapeutic approach with cell therapy, neurological impairment in xeroderma pigmentosum, behavioural anomalies in X-linked ichthyosis, guidelines for neurofibromatosis type I, the genetics of an hereditary hypotrichosis, infantile acne, rosacea in childhood, mast cell disease management and, last but not least, treatment of hair lice with silicone.
    Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie 12/2008; 135 Suppl 7:S343-53. · 0.67 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The 67th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology took place in San Francisco on 6-10 March 2009. The flavour of this busy but well-organized convention was a mixture of practical, hands-on teaching sessions, led and delivered by experts, with breakthrough cutting-edge scientific sessions. Aesthetic dermatology comprised a significant part of the meeting. It is impossible to encompass all the important presentations made at the meeting and satellite symposiums, but we highlight here a few medical pearls on dermoscopy, melanoma and oncology, inflammatory dermatoses and community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Our report is not intended as a substitute for reading the conference proceedings, educational session handouts, online updates and related references quoted in this article.
    British Journal of Dermatology 08/2009; 162(1):12-21. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09395.x · 4.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) are present at birth. Some naevi, tardive congenital naevi (TCN), become clinically apparent only after birth, during the first years of life. The number of naevi continues to increase due to the appearance of acquired melanocytic naevi (AMN). When AMN begin to appear has not been well defined. To investigate the clinical and dermoscopic features of the melanocytic naevi present in 2-year-old children and to search for and highlight any differences between CMN present at birth (BPN) and naevi appearing after birth during the first 2 years of life (FLN). A nonrandomized observational study was performed. A total of 133 melanocytic naevi in 103 children aged 21-26 months were analysed by clinical and dermoscopic examination. Of the subjects, 76% of children had one naevus, 20% had two naevi, 3% had three naevi and 1% had four naevi. Of the naevi, 76 were BPN and 57 were FLN. The naevi with the largest diameters were significantly associated with BPN (P = 0·025). Polycyclic edges (P = 0·0378) were observed with a higher frequency in BPN than in FLN. The predominant dermoscopic patterns were globular (BPN 51%; FLN 58%) and reticular (BPN 28%; FLN 14%). The number of naevi present in the first 2 years of life is small, and over half have already appeared at birth. They are distributed widely over the skin. BPN are larger than FLN, but most naevi are small. There was no significant difference in the dermoscopic features between the 133 BPN and FLN. The predominant patterns were globular and reticular. We could not identify defined criteria that allowed us to diagnose CMN with certainty and distinguish them from TCN and AMN.
    British Journal of Dermatology 07/2011; 165(6):1303-7. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10538.x · 4.10 Impact Factor
Show more