Advertisement

Archives of Dermatological Research

, Volume 307, Issue 7, pp 559–566 | Cite as

High-resolution color-Doppler ultrasound for the study of skin growths

  • Maria Scotto di Santolo
  • Marco Sagnelli
  • Marcello Mancini
  • Massimiliano Scalvenzi
  • Mario Delfino
  • Fabrizio Schonauer
  • Guido Molea
  • Fabio Ayala
  • Marco Salvatore
Original Paper

Abstract

High-resolution (17 MHz) color-Doppler ultrasound (US) is used in the evaluation of normal and pathological skin. To analyze retrospectively the sonographic pattern of healthy skin and of some skin lesions using Doppler US and to compare the results with dermoscopy examination and histology to identify specific patterns of ultrasound for differentiating benign from malignant lesions. To select among them the Melanomas to describe their US pattern, the presence and morphology of vascular signal and to compare their thickness at US with the Breslow index. After signing informed consent in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 and its subsequent amendments, 104 patients with skin lesions were retrospectively studied. Patients were evaluated with clinical dermatological examination and Doppler US, and underwent surgical excision with subsequent histological analysis. Statistical analysis: the difference between variables was analyzed with statistical Chi square test or Fisher’s when appropriate. The strength of the relationship between variables was analyzed with Pearson’s r coefficient. The sensitivity and specificity of US tests were also calculated. Sixty-five malignant lesions and 39 benign lesions were identified at Doppler US. In the 34 melanomas, typical US and vascular patterns were identified depending on the thickness of the lesion and a strong correlation between the latter and Breslow index was confirmed. Doppler US is a valuable diagnostic tool for the study of skin and for pre-excision characterization of skin lesions.

Keywords

Skin ultrasound Color Doppler High-resolution ultrasound Skin lesions Melanoma Breslow index 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the publication of this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Alexander H, Miller DL (1979) Determining skin thickness with pulsed ultrasound. J Invest Dermatol 72(1):17–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aspres N, Egerton IB, Lim AC, Shumack SP (2003) Imaging the skin. Australas J Dermatol 44(1):19–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bessoud B, Lassau N, Koscielny S, Longvert C, Avril MF, Duvillard P, Rouffiac V, Leclère J, Roche A (2003) High-frequency sonography and color Doppler in the management of pigmented skin lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol 29(6):875–879CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breslow A (1970) Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg 172:902–908PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cammarota T, Pinto F, Magliaro A, Sarno A (1998) A current uses of diagnostic high-frequency US in dermatology. Eur J Radiol 27(Suppl 2):215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catalano O, Siani A (2010) Cutaneous melanoma: role of ultrasound in the assessment of locoregional spread. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 39:30–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Catalano O, Voit C, Sandomenico F, Mandato Y, Petrillo M, Franco R, Botti G, Caracò C, Mozzillo N, D’Errico AG (2011) Previously reported sonographic appearances of regional melanoma metastases are not likely due to necrosis. J Ultrasound Med 30(8):1041–1049PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Catalano O (2011) Critical analysis of the ultrasonographic criteria for diagnosing lymph node metastasis in patients with cutaneous melanoma: a Systematic review. J Ultrasound Med 30:547–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Catalano O, Caraco C, Mozzillo N, Siani A (2010) Locoregional spread of cutaneous melanoma: sonography findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:735–745CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Choo HJ, Lee SJ, Lee YH (2010) Pilomatricomas: the diagnostic value of ultrasound. Skeletal Radiol 39:243–250CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clément A, Hoeffel C, Fayet P, Benkanoun S, Sahut D’izarn J, Oudjit A, Legmann P, Gorin I, Escande J, Bonnin A (2001) Value of high frequency (20 MHz) and Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of pigmented cutaneous tumors. J Radiol 82(5):563–571PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crisan D, Lupsor M, Boca A, Crisan M, Badea R (2012) Ultrasonographic assessment of skin structure according to age. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 78(4):519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Giovagnorio F, Andreoli C, De Cicco ML (1999) Color Doppler sonography of focal lesions of the skin and subcutaneous tissue. J Ultrasound Med 18(2):89–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harland CC, Bamber JC, Gusterson BA, Mortimer PS (1993) High frequency, high resolution ultrasound in the assessment of skin tumours. Br J Dermatol 128(5):525–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kleinerman R, Whang TB, Bard RL, Marmur ES (2012) Review ultrasound in dermatology: principles and applications. J Am Acad Dermatol 67(3):478–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lassau N, Chami L, Benatsou B, Peronneau P, Roche A (2007) Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US) with quantification of tumor perfusion: a new diagnostic tool to evaluate the early effects of antiangiogenic treatment. Eur Radiol 17(6):89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lassau N, Chapotot L, Benatsou B, Vilgrain V, Kind M, Lacroix J, Cuinet M, Taieb S, Aziza R, Sarran A, Labbe C, Gallix B, Lucidarme O, Ptak Y, Rocher L, Caquot LM, Chagnon S, Marion D, Luciani A, Uzan-Augui J, Koscielny S (2012) Standardization of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of antiangiogenic therapies: the French multicenter Support for I Innovative and Expensive Techniques Study. Invest Radiol 47(12):711–716CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lassau N, Chebil M, Chami L, Bidault S, Girard E, Roche A (2010) Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US): a new tool for the early evaluation of antiangiogenic treatment. Target Oncol 5(1):53–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lassau N, Spatz A, Avril MF, Tardivon A, Margulis A, Mamelle G, Vanel D, Leclere J (1997) Value of high-frequency US for preoperative assessment of skin tumors. Radiographics 17(6):1559–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lassau N, Lamuraglia M (2006) Prognostic value of angiogenesis evaluated with high frequency and colour Doppler sonography for preoperative assessment of primary cutaneous melanomas: correlation with recurrence after a 5 year follow-up period. Cancer Imaging 25(6):24–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mandava A, Ravuri PR, Konathan R (2013) High-resolution ultrasound imaging of cutaneous lesions. Indian J Radiol Imaging 23(3):269–277PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pellacani G, Seidenari S (2003) Preoperative melanoma thickness determination by 20-MHz sonography and digital videomicroscopy in combination. Arch Dermatol 139(3):293–300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Polańska A, Aleksandra Dańczak-Pazdrowska A, Silny W, Jenerowicz D, Olek-Hrab K, Osmola- Mańkowska A (2013) Nonlesional skin in atopic dermatitis is seemingly healthy skin—observations using noninvasive methods. Videosurgery Miniinv 8(3):192–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pupelli G, Longo C (2013) Small diameter melanocytic lesions: morphological analysis by means of in vivo confocal microscopy. Br J Dermatol 168(5):1027–1033CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rallan D, Harland CC (2003) Ultrasound in dermatology—basic principles and applications. Clin Exp Dermatol 28:632–638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandby-Moller J, Wulf HC (2004) Ultrasonographic subepidermal low-echogenic band, dependence of age and body site. Skin Res Technol 10(1):57–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandby-Møller J, Thieden E, Philipsen PA, Schmidt G, Wulf HC (2004) Dermal echogenicity: a biological indicator of individual cumulative UVR exposure. Arch Dermatol Res 295(11):498–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Serrone L, Solivetti F, Thorel M, Eibenschuntz L, Donati P, Catricalà C (2002) High frequency ultrasound in the preoperative staging of primary melanoma: a statistical analysis. Melanoma Res 12:287–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Srivastava A, Woodcock JP, Mansel RE, Webster DJ, Laidler P, Hughes LE, Dwivedi A (2012) Doppler ultrasound flowmetry predicts 15 year outcome in patients with skin melanoma. Indian J Surg 74(4):278–283PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ulrich J, Petereit S, Gollnick H (1999) Preoperative sonographic diagnosis of melanoma—comparison of 7,5- and 20 MHz sonography. Ultrashall Med 20(5):197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wortsman X, Wortsman J (2010) Clinical usefulness of variable-frequency ultrasound in localized lesions of the skin. J Am Acad Dermatol 62:247–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wortsman X (2012) Common applications of dermatologic sonography. J Ultrasound Med 31(1):97–111PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria Scotto di Santolo
    • 1
  • Marco Sagnelli
    • 1
  • Marcello Mancini
    • 2
  • Massimiliano Scalvenzi
    • 3
  • Mario Delfino
    • 3
  • Fabrizio Schonauer
    • 4
  • Guido Molea
    • 4
  • Fabio Ayala
    • 3
  • Marco Salvatore
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze Biomorfologiche e Funzionali sezione RadiodiagnosticaUniversità degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.IBB Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche NapoliNaplesItaly
  3. 3.Dipartimento di Patologa Sistematica, sezione di Dermatologia Clinica Allergologica e VenereologicaUniversità degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  4. 4.Dipartimento di Chirurgia PlasticaUniversità degli Studi di Napoli “Federico II”NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations