Letters to the Editor
Is Removal of Melanocytic Nevi the Optimal Treatment Strategy?
FREE PREVIEW Log in or buy this issue to read the full article. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles. Subscribe now.
FREE PREVIEW Subscribe or buy this issue. AAFP members and paid subscribers get free access to all articles.
Am Fam Physician. 2009 Sep 15;80(6):554-556.
Original Article: Newborn Skin: Part II. Birthmarks
Issue Date: January 1, 2008
Available at: http://www.aafp.org/afp/20080101/56.html
to the editor: In the article on newborn skin, the authors recommend removal of large and giant congenital melanocytic nevi as the current management strategy. In fact, complete nevus removal is impossible for many large nevi and virtually all giant nevi. In these cases, there is an insufficient amount of uninvolved skin necessary for repair after surgical excision, even with the use of multiple, serial skin expanders (Figure 1). Unfortunately, the continued use of this impractical guideline often induces desperation for a cure in both parents and physicians of children with large and giant nevi.
In our congenital nevus support group, many children have undergone 20, 40, or even 60 surgical procedures spanning their entire childhood years in a desperate attempt at removal. This management strategy often is abandoned in the teenage years after the children have been further disfigured by extensive surgical scarring (Figure 2) and finally realize that removal is impossible.
Our support group includes several children who have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder after undergoing multiple excisional surgical procedures. In our experience, multiple major surgical operations often lead to substantial psychological and emotional trauma. In addition, the risk of severe complications for patients with large/giant nevi is surprisingly low (possibly around 10 percent) over a lifetime. In our support group, the risk of malignancy is currently about 3 to 4 percent for patients with large/giant nevi and about 1 percent for those with smaller nevi such as facial or extremity nevi.1,2 Therefore, there is insufficient reason to perform disfiguring removal procedures in these patients.
The optimal management strategy for children with large/giant nevi is learning to cope with the nevus and its potential health and psychosocial consequences, including the possibility of a shortened lifespan, until better removal techniques are discovered. Fortunately, family physicians are uniquely positioned to assist patients and their families in this potentially daunting task.
1. Bett BJ. Large or multiple congenital melanocytic nevi: occurrence of cutaneous melanoma in 1008 persons. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(5):793–797.
2. Bett BJ. Large or multiple congenital melanocytic nevi: occurrence of neurocutaneous melanocytosis in 1008 persons. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54(5):767–777.
in reply: Dr. Bett's letter is a superb reminder why it is crucial for all physicians to understand the distinctions between Strength-of-Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) grades.1 The expert recommendation for prophylactic removal of large/giant congenital melanocytic nevi (SORT evidence rating: C) has not been supported by well-done clinical trials assessing important outcomes such as disfigurement, psychological stress, pain, transformation to malignancy, death, and quality of life. Family physicians should recommend discussion of surgical options rather than putting the surgical specialist in an awkward position by suggesting surgery is necessary. In our article (Table 1), we slipped into the simplistic “remove nevus” where “discuss removal options” would be more appropriate. We are grateful to Dr. Bett for pointing out how expert opinions need to be treated with caution by referring physicians.
1. Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69(3):548–556.
Send letters to Kenneth W. Lin, MD, MPH, Associate Deputy Editor for AFP Online, e-mail: email@example.com, or 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211-2680.
Please include your complete address, e-mail address, and telephone number. Letters should be fewer than 400 words and limited to six references, one table or figure, and three authors.
Letters submitted for publication in AFP must not be submitted to any other publication. Possible conflicts of interest must be disclosed at time of submission. Submission of a letter will be construed as granting the American Academy of Family Physicians permission to publish the letter in any of its publications in any form. The editors may edit letters to meet style and space requirements.
Copyright © 2009 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org for copyright questions and/or permission requests.
Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions