Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Congenital Nevi: The Controversy Rages On

Congenital Nevi: The Controversy Rages On Abstract Should we remove all congenital nevi (CN) regardless of size? I am frequently asked this question by a variety of physicians. I think it is safe to say that there is no universally accepted answer. As recently as the 1984 Annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting, Rhodes and Kopf were on the program to, once again, debate the pros and cons of removal. I have heard it said (tongue in cheek, of course) that matters would be greatly simplified if the two were given dueling pistols and let the outcome dictate policy from then on. In order to answer the original question in the affirmative, the minimum requirement would be to prove malignant potential for these lesions. That large (>20 cm) CN are melanoma precursors is agreed on by essentially all investigators working in this area.1,2 The magnitude of the risk varies greatly from report to report, but the References 1. Kopf AW, Burt RS, Hennessey P: Congenital nevocytic nevi and malignant melanomas . J Am Acad Dermatol 1979;1:123-130.Crossref 2. Rhodes AR, Sober AJ, Day CL, et al: The malignant potential of small congenital nevocellular nevi . J Am Acad Dermatol 1982;6:230-241.Crossref 3. Rhodes AR: The risk of malignant melanoma arising in congenital melanocytic nevi: An argument against the assignment of risk based on size alone . J Am Acad Dermatopathol 1984;6:184-188. 4. Arons MS, Hurwitz S: Congenital nevocellular nevus: A review of the treatment controversy and a report of 46 cases . Plast Reconstr Surg 1983;12:355-365. 5. Solomon LM: The management of congenital melanocytic nevi . Arch Dermatol 1980;116:1017.Crossref 6. Walton RG, Jacobs AH, Cox AJ: Pigmented lesions in newborn infants . Br J Dermatol 1976;95:389-396.Crossref 7. Alper JC, Holmes LB: The incidence and significance of birthmarks in a cohort of 4,641 newborns . Pediatr Dermatol 1983;1:58-68.Crossref 8. Alper JC, Holmes LB, Mihm MC: Birthmarks with serious medical significance: Nevocellular nevi sebaceous nevi, and multiple café-au-lait spots . J Pediatr 1979;95:696-700.Crossref 9. Mach GJ, Mihm MC, Liteplo MG, et al: Congenital melanocytic nevi of the small and garment type . Hum Pathol 1973;4:395-418.Crossref http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Dermatology American Medical Association

Congenital Nevi: The Controversy Rages On

Archives of Dermatology , Volume 121 (6) – Jun 1, 1985

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/congenital-nevi-the-controversy-rages-on-C2bztfZXUI
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-987X
eISSN
1538-3652
DOI
10.1001/archderm.1985.01660060048018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Should we remove all congenital nevi (CN) regardless of size? I am frequently asked this question by a variety of physicians. I think it is safe to say that there is no universally accepted answer. As recently as the 1984 Annual American Academy of Dermatology meeting, Rhodes and Kopf were on the program to, once again, debate the pros and cons of removal. I have heard it said (tongue in cheek, of course) that matters would be greatly simplified if the two were given dueling pistols and let the outcome dictate policy from then on. In order to answer the original question in the affirmative, the minimum requirement would be to prove malignant potential for these lesions. That large (>20 cm) CN are melanoma precursors is agreed on by essentially all investigators working in this area.1,2 The magnitude of the risk varies greatly from report to report, but the References 1. Kopf AW, Burt RS, Hennessey P: Congenital nevocytic nevi and malignant melanomas . J Am Acad Dermatol 1979;1:123-130.Crossref 2. Rhodes AR, Sober AJ, Day CL, et al: The malignant potential of small congenital nevocellular nevi . J Am Acad Dermatol 1982;6:230-241.Crossref 3. Rhodes AR: The risk of malignant melanoma arising in congenital melanocytic nevi: An argument against the assignment of risk based on size alone . J Am Acad Dermatopathol 1984;6:184-188. 4. Arons MS, Hurwitz S: Congenital nevocellular nevus: A review of the treatment controversy and a report of 46 cases . Plast Reconstr Surg 1983;12:355-365. 5. Solomon LM: The management of congenital melanocytic nevi . Arch Dermatol 1980;116:1017.Crossref 6. Walton RG, Jacobs AH, Cox AJ: Pigmented lesions in newborn infants . Br J Dermatol 1976;95:389-396.Crossref 7. Alper JC, Holmes LB: The incidence and significance of birthmarks in a cohort of 4,641 newborns . Pediatr Dermatol 1983;1:58-68.Crossref 8. Alper JC, Holmes LB, Mihm MC: Birthmarks with serious medical significance: Nevocellular nevi sebaceous nevi, and multiple café-au-lait spots . J Pediatr 1979;95:696-700.Crossref 9. Mach GJ, Mihm MC, Liteplo MG, et al: Congenital melanocytic nevi of the small and garment type . Hum Pathol 1973;4:395-418.Crossref

Journal

Archives of DermatologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jun 1, 1985

References