European Journal of Dermatology

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 505–510 | Cite as

Dermoscopy of congenital melanocytic nevi: a ten-year follow-up study and comparative analysis with acquired melanocytic nevi arising in prepubertal age

  • Enzo ErrichettiEmail author
  • Martina Maria Patriarca
  • Giuseppe Stinco
Clinical Report



Dermoscopic characteristics of congenital melanocytic nevi (CMN) have been reported, however, dermoscopic variation during long-term follow-up and direct comparative analyses with acquired melanocytic nevi (AMN) are poorly documented.


To assess dermoscopic changes of CMN (including lesions present at birth or appearing within the first two years of age) after a long-term period and evaluate possible dermoscopic differences withAMNarising during prepubertal age.

Materials & methods

We re-analysed clinical and dermoscopic features of CMN, investigated ten years earlier. New findings were compared with those previously recorded, as well as with those of AMNappearing before puberty in the same group of patients.


In total, 493 lesions (86 CMN and 407 AMN) from 71 patients were examined. Except for a greater size (median area: 73.9 vs 22.8 mm2; p<0.001) and higher prevalence of hair (17.4% vs 4.7; p<0.001) in CMN, no significant difference was observed between the two cohorts, including global/local dermoscopic features (p>0.05). The follow-up of CMN revealed that dermoscopic pattern changed in only four lesions (4.7%) (from globular to globular-reticular or reticular) after ten years, though lesions with a globular architecture presented several “local” changes, namely an increase in circumscribed reticular areas (from 20.0% to 41.5%; p = 0.030), irregularly distributed globules (from 15.6% to 34.1%; p = 0.045), and large globules (from 46.7% to 68.3%; p = 0.043).


The dermoscopic appearance ofCMNis significantly stable during childhood and is similar to that of AMN arising before puberty, thus supporting a possible link between such types of nevi.

Key words

acquired melanocytic nevi congenital melanocytic nevi dermoscopy follow-up prepubertal age tardive congenital melanocytic nevi 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Clemmensen OJ, Kroon S. The histology of “congenital features” in early acquired melanocytic nevi. J Am Acad Dermatol 1988; 19: 742–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Massi G, LeBoit PE. Congenital Nevus. In: Histological Diagnosis of Nevi and Melanoma. 2 nd ed. Massi G, LeBoit PE. Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2014: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stinco G, Argenziano G, Favot F, Valent F, Patrone P. Absence of clinical and dermoscopic differences between congenital and noncongenital melanocytic naevi in a cohort of 2-year-old children. Br J Dermatol 2011; 165: 1303–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Viana AC, Gontijo B, Bittencourt FV. Giant congenital melanocytic nevus. An Bras Dermatol 2013; 88: 863–78.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Changchien L, Dusza SW, Agero AL, et al. Age-and site-specific variation in the dermoscopic patterns of congenital melanocytic nevi: an aid to accurate classification and assessment of melanocytic nevi. Arch Dermatol 2007; 143: 1007–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Congenital Nevi Workup. Available at: accessed 02 June 2016).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Seidenari S, Pellacani G, Martella A, et al. Instrument-, ageand site-dependent variations of dermoscopic patterns of congenital melanocytic naevi: a multicentre study. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155: 56–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Seidenari S, Pellacani G. Surface microscopy features of congenital nevi. Clin Dermatol 2002; 20: 263–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aguilera P, Puig S, Guilabert A, et al. Prevalence study of nevi in children from Barcelona. Dermoscopy, constitutional and environmental factors. Dermatology 2009; 218: 203–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ingordo V, Iannazzone SS, Cusano F, Naldi L. Reproducibility of dermoscopic features of congenital melanocytic nevi. Dermatology 2008; 217: 231–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ingordo V, Iannazzone SS, Cusano F, Naldi L. Dermoscopic features of congenital melanocytic nevus and Becker nevus in an adult male population: an analysis with a 10-fold magnification. Dermatology 2006; 212: 354–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braun RP, Calza AM, Krischer J. The use of digital dermoscopy for the follow-up of congenital nevi: a pilot study. Pediatr Dermatol 2001; 18: 277–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Minagawa A, Koga H, Saida T. Dermoscopic characteristics of congenital melanocytic nevi affecting acral volar skin. Arch Dermatol 2011; 147: 809–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chuah SY, Tsilika K, Chiaverini C, et al. Dermoscopic features of congenital acral melanocytic naevi in children: a prospective comparative and follow-up study. Br J Dermatol 2015; 172: 88–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saida T, Koga H, Uhara H. Key points in dermoscopic differentiation between early acral melanoma and acral nevus. J Dermatol 2011; 38: 25–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Belloni Fortina A, Zattra E, Bernardini B, Alaibac M, Peserico A. Dermoscopic changes in melanocytic naevi in children during digital follow-up. Acta Derm Venereol 2012; 92: 427–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Scope A, Dusza SW, Marghoob AA, et al. Clinical and dermoscopic stability and volatility of melanocytic nevi in a population-based cohort of children in Framingham school system. J Invest Dermatol 2011; 131: 1615–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scope A, Marghoob AA, Dusza SW, Oliveria SA, Halpern AC. Change in dermoscopic pattern of naevi in children: a commentary. Acta Derm Venereol 2014; 94: 120–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Belloni Fortina A, Zattra E, Bernardini B, Alaibac M, Peserico A. Response to “change in dermoscopic pattern of naevi in children” by Scope et al. Acta Derm Venereol 2014; 94: 121–2.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zalaudek I, Grinschgl S, Argenziano G, et al. Age-related prevalence of dermoscopy patterns in acquired melanocytic naevi. Br J Dermatol 2006; 154: 299–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oztas P, Ilhan MN, Polat M, Alli N. Clinical and dermoscopic characteristics of melanocytic nevi in Turkish children and their relationship with environmental and constitutional factors. Dermatol Surg 2007; 33: 607–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zalaudek I, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Kittler H, et al. A dual concept of nevogenesis: theoretical considerations based on dermoscopic features of melanocytic nevi. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2007; 5: 985–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zalaudek I, Hofmann-Wellenhof R, Soyer HP, Ferrara G, Argenziano G. Naevogenesis: new thoughts based on dermoscopy. Br J Dermatol 2006; 154: 793–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krengel S. Nevogenesis-new thoughts regarding a classical problem. Am J Dermatopathol 2005; 27: 456–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ichii-Nakato N, Takata M, Takayanagi S, et al. High frequency of BRAFV600E mutation in acquired nevi and small congenital nevi, but low frequency of mutation in medium-sized congenital nevi. J Invest Dermatol 2006; 126: 2111–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zalaudek I, Argenziano G, Mordente I, et al. Nevus type in dermoscopy is related to skin type in white persons. Arch Dermatol 2007; 143: 351–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zalaudek I, Schmid K, Marghoob AA, et al. Frequency of dermoscopic nevus subtypes by age and body site: a cross-sectional study. Arch Dermatol 2011; 147: 663–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© John Libbey Eurotext 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Enzo Errichetti
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martina Maria Patriarca
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Stinco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Institute of DermatologyUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations