How Good Are Parents at Assessing Melanocytic Nevi on Their Children? A Study Comparing Parental Counts, Dermatologist Counts, and Counts Obtained from Photographs

Simone L. Harrison1, Petra G. Buettner1, Robert MacLennan1,2, John W. Kelly3 and Jason K. Rivers4

1 Skin Cancer Research Group, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
2 Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
3 Victorian Melanoma Service and Dermatology Unit, Monash University Department of Medicine, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
4 Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The objective of this study was to evaluate agreement among counts of melanocytic nevi made by parents, counts made by a dermatologist, and counts made by assessment of photographs. In 1990, 421 schoolchildren aged 6–15 years from Townsville, Queensland, Australia (latitude 19.16°S), participated in the Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study. In an agreement study, parents were asked to mark on an anatomic diagram any melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter they observed on their child's back prior to the child's examination by a dermatologist; 324 parents responded (a 77% response rate). Standardized slide photographs of each child's back were taken, and melanocytic nevi were counted by an experienced non-medical-examiner upon projection. Agreement was assessed graphically and with the concordance correlation coefficient (rc). Parental counts of melanocytic nevi were similar to counts made by the dermatologist (n = 77; for nevi >=2 mm, rc = 0.51; for nevi >=5 mm, rc = 0.78) and counts obtained from the photographs (n = 324; for nevi >=2 mm, rc = 0.68; for nevi >=5 mm, rc = 0.68). Few parents reported false-positive lesions. Parents tended to underestimate the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter (mean difference from dermatologist: -3.2, standard deviation 6.8; mean difference from photographs: -1.1, standard deviation 5.1), particularly when the density of melanocytic nevi was high. Agreement between dermatologist counts and photograph counts was high (for nevi >=2 mm, rc = 0.80; for nevi >=5 mm, rc = 0.87). The authors conclude that parents are capable of counting melanocytic nevi on their children's skin with some validity. In epidemiologic studies of children, counts of melanocytic nevi obtained from standardized photographs have the potential to replace counts made by physicians.

melanoma; nevi and melanomas; nevus, pigmented

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; SD, standard deviation


    INTRODUCTION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Number of melanocytic nevi and type of melanocytic nevi have consistently been identified as strong risk factors for cutaneous melanoma (1GoGo–3Go). Melanocytic nevi could play an etiologic role in the development of melanoma in two ways: as direct precursor lesions and as risk markers (4GoGoGo–7Go). Caucasians develop melanocytic nevi early in life, and studies in children have found that high numbers and early development of melanocytic nevi are related to level of sun exposure (8GoGoGoGoGo–13Go). In addition, childhood sun exposure has been identified as a predictor of melanocytic nevi in adults (14GoGo–16Go), and one British study showed a direct association between the presence of melanocytic nevi in early childhood and the development of large numbers of melanocytic nevi later in life (17Go). Thus, high numbers of melanocytic nevi in childhood should be considered an important risk indicator for the development of melanoma later in life.

The skin's pigmented lesions have the advantage of being visible. Recognizing melanocytic nevi in adults can be difficult even for trained observers, because of the effects of sun damage, the presence of solar lentigines, and the appearance of other pigmented lesions such as seborrheic keratoses. However, these factors are less problematic in children. Studies investigating agreement among medical professionals in diagnosing morphologic features of pigmented lesions, especially clinical atypia of melanocytic nevi, have shown limited reliability (18Go, 19Go). On the other hand, several studies found reasonable-to-good agreement between counts of melanocytic nevi when similarly trained observers were compared (20GoGoGoGo–24Go), particularly when the subjects were children or adolescents (21Go, 22Go, 24Go). The observers with the greatest access to children are their parents or guardians. This group has tremendous potential for monitoring of melanocytic nevi in children.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of parents, using simple illustrated instructions, to recognize, count, record, and measure melanocytic nevi on the backs of their children and to identify factors that might be responsible for inaccuracies in their assessments. In addition, the usefulness of photographs in assessing melanocytic nevi was investigated.


    MATERIALS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Participants
In 1990, 599 schoolchildren from Townsville, Queens-land, Australia (latitude 19.16°S), were invited to take part in the Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study (9Go). To minimize ethnic variation, local schools in which at least 80 percent of the population had been born in Australia (according to the 1986 Australian census) were identified. Permission to approach the principals of four state government schools was obtained from the state education department, and all four schools participated. Children aged 6, 9, 12, and 15 years were recruited by means of an explanatory letter sent to their parents that included a consent form. The parents of 421 children agreed to participate (a 70.3 percent response rate). All children whose parents consented to examination were studied, but children who had two or more grandparents of non-European origin were excluded from the analysis. Further details on the recruitment process have been provided previously (9Go).

Parental assessment of skin lesions
The parents of each child were sent 1) illustrated instructions teaching them how to recognize melanocytic nevi, 2) a clear plastic film imprinted with thin black circles 2 mm and 5 mm in diameter with which to measure nevus size, and 3) an outline of the human back on which to record the position and size of each nevus observed. The shoulders were defined as the area above the scapulae, because of the potential for large numbers of freckles and solar lentigines on the shoulders and their possible misclassification. Color photographs showed parents the features of countable melanocytic nevi and noncountable lesions. The parents were asked to: study the instructions provided; examine their child's back for melanocytic nevi under bright lighting; measure lesions they recognized as melanocytic nevi with the skin unstretched using the circles on the plastic film; record each nevus that was greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter by marking its location on the anatomic diagram; and indicate which melanocytic nevi were greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter. Melanocytic nevi were considered greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter if the widest part of the lesion touched both sides of the 2-mm circle, and they were considered greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter if both sides of the lesion touched or overlapped the 5-mm circle.

The parents of 324 children (77 percent of the available sample of 421 children) counted their child's melanocytic nevi and returned a completed diagram to us prior to the commencement of the clinical examinations.

Dermatologic examination
Seventy-seven of the 324 children whose parents had counted their melanocytic nevi were examined by an experienced dermatologist (J. K. R.) according to a standard international protocol (25Go). The other 247 children were examined by two dermatology trainees. Only the findings of the experienced dermatologist were treated as the "gold standard." In postpubertal girls, the skin of the breasts was not examined, and brassieres were not removed. During the clinical examination, a small round adhesive sticker was placed in the center of an imaginary line drawn from the tips of the acromion to the superior margins of the spines of the scapulae to mark the upper boundary of the back. A similar sticker was placed in the center of the lower boundary of the back, defined by a line from the iliac crests to the posterior superior iliac spines. These boundaries matched the upper and lower boundary lines drawn on the anatomic map of the back given to parents. An adhesive millimeter scale was labeled with the child's name and identification number and placed centrally between the shoulders, above the spines of the scapulae.

Lesions counted as melanocytic nevi were brown-to-black macules or papules greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and darker than the surrounding skin (9Go, 25Go). Nevus size was measured with the skin unstretched using a clear plastic film with thin black circles 2 mm and 5 mm in diameter drawn on it. No attempt was made to differentiate lentigo simplex from junctional melanocytic nevi. Lesions with the clinical characteristics of freckles, solar lentigines, and café-au-lait spots were recorded separately. The distribution and density of freckling on the face, arms, and shoulders were assessed quantitatively (on a scale of 0–100, in increments of 10) using standard drawings (8Go, 26Go). Skin reflectance at 685 nm was determined for the left inner upper arm using an Evans Electroselenium reflectance spectrophotometer (Diffusion Systems Ltd., London, United Kingdom). Skin reflectance was categorized as fair (>=67 percent), medium (64.0–66.9 percent), or olive (<64.0 percent) using previously established cutoff points (9Go, 11Go, 27Go). Hair and eye color were assessed through comparisons with standard hair samples from wig manufacturers and color prints of a range of eye colors.

Photographic assessment
Directly after the clinical examination, a slide photograph of the back of each child was taken (by R. M.) using Kodachrome 64 film (Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York) and a Nikon F3 camera with a type E (matte) focusing screen, a 55-mm Micro-Nikkor lens, and an SB17 electronic angle flash unit with a diffuser covering the flash tube (Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). The slides were later projected and compared (by S. L. H.) with the anatomic diagrams of the children's backs that had been completed by parents. The overall pattern of melanocytic nevi drawn on the diagrams was compared with the pattern of countable lesions evident from the slides, and results were classified as very similar, similar, or dissimilar. A divider from a geometric instrument set was calibrated against the projected millimeter scale to an opening of 2 mm. Melanocytic nevi were then measured from the projected image, and those greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter were identified. Melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm were similarly identified. The assessor of the slides was "blind" to the dermatologist's counts.

Lesions which were marked by parents on the diagram in positions that were likely to be obscured by clothing in the photograph (brassieres, waist-high underpants, swimsuits) could not be assessed and were excluded from the comparison. Lesions designated false-positive included those drawn by parents which could not be seen on the projected slide and those which had been misclassified as melanocytic nevi. The numbers of lesions that were correctly identified by parents as melanocytic nevi but either were too small to be counted (<2 mm) or could not be located in the diagrammed area of the back (melanocytic nevi visible on the shoulders, buttocks, or arms) were recorded separately.

Statistical analysis
Counts of melanocytic nevi are described here in terms of median values and ranges, because the distributions were skewed. Agreement between counts of melanocytic nevi was assessed graphically by plotting the difference between counts against the average of counts (28Go), separately for parental counts versus dermatologist counts (figure 1), parental counts versus counts obtained from photographs (figure 2), and dermatologist counts versus counts obtained from photographs (figure 3). The mean differences and standard deviations of the differences were calculated. In a case of good agreement, the plot of differences against mean values results in differences that are normally distributed around zero irrespective of the average values. The relations between differences and averages were assessed using linear regression analyses. The equations of the linear regression lines are given here along with Pearson's correlation coefficient (r).



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 1. Agreement between parental counts of melanocytic nevi (MN) greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and counts made by an experienced dermatologist (n = 77) among schoolchildren involved in the Townsville (Queensland) component of the Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study, 1990. Agreement is depicted as differences versus averages. Mean differences with two standard deviations (SDs) and the linear regression line for difference versus average are shown.

 


View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 2. Agreement between parental counts of melanocytic nevi (MN) greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and counts obtained from photographs (n = 324) among schoolchildren involved in the Townsville (Queensland) component of the Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study, 1990. Agreement is depicted as differences versus averages. Mean differences with two standard deviations (SDs) and the linear regression line for difference versus average are shown.

 


View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
FIGURE 3. Agreement between counts of melanocytic nevi (MN) greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter obtained from photographs and counts made by an experienced dermatologist (n = 77) among schoolchildren involved in the Townsville (Queensland) component of the Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study, 1990. Agreement is depicted as differences versus averages. Mean differences with two standard deviations (SDs) and the linear regression line for difference versus average are shown.

 
Agreement between melanocytic nevus counts made by parents and counts obtained from photographs and the dermatologist was assessed numerically using the concordance correlation coefficient (rc) suggested by I-Kuei Lin (29Go). Coefficients are given together with approximative 95 percent confidence intervals based on z transformations (29Go).

As appropriate, parametric and nonparametric bivariate statistical tests were used to assess relations between similarity of melanocytic nevus patterns and differences in melanocytic nevus counts by age, skin reflectance, eye color, hair color, freckling, and total melanocytic nevus count. Nonparametric tests were used to compare differences between parental and dermatologist counts according to the participating parent's gender and education and the birthplace of the participating parent's parents. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to determine whether any parental factors had a significant impact on the accuracy of parental counts. Differences between parental and dermatologist counts were characterized dichotomously as parental undercounting (yes/no) of nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and parental undercounting of nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify predictors of undercounting by parents. Predictors of undercounting for parental counts versus photograph counts and for photograph counts versus dermatologist counts were similarly identified. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS for Windows (version 6.3.1), and p values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All p values shown are two-sided.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
This study analyzed data from 324 Caucasian children (46.6 percent males) aged 6 (27.0 percent), 9 (25.9 percent), 12 (29.6 percent), and 15 (17.6 percent) years. Blue was the most common eye color (50.5 percent), and 44.0 percent of the children had fair or red hair. According to skin reflectance measurements, 17.9 percent of the children had olive skin, 32.1 percent had skin of a medium tone, and 50.0 percent were fair. Most freckling occurred on the face (median level of 20 on a scale of 0–100), while 51.1 percent of the children had freckles on their shoulders (median level of 5 on a scale of 0–100). Thirty-five percent (n = 77) of the children had at least one melanocytic nevus greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter. Median counts of melanocytic nevi according to parents, the dermatologist, and photographs are reported by age in table 1. Detailed analysis of the factors associated with number and density of melanocytic nevi has been published previously (9Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 1. Median numbers and ranges of counts of melanocytic nevi on the backs of children aged 6–15 years according to dermatologic (n = 77), parental (n = 324), and photographic (n = 324) assessment, by age, Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study, 1990

 
A greater proportion of mothers (88.3 percent) than of fathers participated. Of parents who participated, 4.1 percent had a primary school education, 36.4 percent had completed some high school, 47.2 percent had completed grade 12, and 12.3 percent had a tertiary education. In almost all cases (98.1 percent), both of the participating parent's parents were Caucasian, and in 75.6 percent of cases, both had been born in Australia.

Agreement between parental nevus counts and counts made by an experienced dermatologist
Compared with counts made by the dermatologist (n = 77), parents on average underestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter (mean difference = -3.2, standard deviation (SD) 6.8; figure 1). Approximately 68 percent of parents underestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter. There was a significant negative relation between differences and averages (r = -0.56, p < 0.0001; regression line: difference = 1.47 - 0.59 x average), showing that the likelihood of parents' underestimating the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter on their child's back increased with the number of melanocytic nevi. Logistic regression analysis revealed that freckling (odds ratio = 1.04, 95 percent confidence interval (CI): 1.00, 1.08; p = 0.083) and the other phenotypic and demographic variables investigated were not significant predictors of underestimation by parents. Neither the gender (nevi >=2 mm: p = 0.88; nevi >=5 mm: p = 0.73) nor the educational level (nevi >=2 mm: p = 0.37; nevi >=5 mm: p = 0.18) of the participating parent had a significant influence on the accuracy of counting. Participating parents whose parents had both been born in Australia were more likely to undercount melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter (median difference = -2 (interquartile range: -7.75 to -0.25)) than were participants with at least one parent who had been born outside of Australia (median difference = -0.5 (interquartile range: -2.75 to 1); p = 0.034). Participating parents with two Australian-born parents may have undercounted melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter more often because their children had more melanocytic nevi, according to the dermatologist's assessment (median number of nevi >=2 mm = 8.5 (interquartile range: 4 to 14.5)), than the children of participating parents whose mother or father or both had been born overseas (median number of nevi >=2 mm = 4.5 (interquartile range: 2 to 8.75)) (p = 0.016). Multiple linear regression analysis confirmed the effect of number of melanocytic nevi (p < 0.0001) on the difference between parental counts and dermatologist counts, but the birthplace of the participating parent's parents was no longer significant (p = 0.43).

The concordance correlation coefficient assessing agreement between parental counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and dermatologist counts was the lowest out of all of the assessments made (rc = 0.51) (table 2). On average, parents slightly overestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter (mean difference = 0.35, SD 1.3). The relation between differences and averages of counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter was not significant (r = 0.22, p = 0.054; regression line: difference = 0.17 + 0.15 x average). Eight parents (10.4 percent) underestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
TABLE 2. Agreement between dermatologic (n = 77), parental (n = 324), and photographic (n = 324) counts of melanocytic nevi on the backs of children aged 6–15 years, as assessed by means of the concordance correlation coefficient (rc), Eastern Australian Childhood Nevus Study, 1990

 
Agreement between parental nevus counts and counts obtained from photographs
Compared with the counts obtained from photographs (n = 324), parents underestimated the number of melano-cytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter (mean difference = -1.1, SD 5.1; figure 2); however, the degree of underestimation was less than that for the comparison with the dermatologist's assessment. There was a significant negative relation between differences and averages (r = -0.27, p < 0.0001; regression line: difference = 0.56 - 0.23 x average). A total of 48.5 percent of parents underestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter. Logistic regression analysis identified number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter as estimated from the photographs (odds ratio = 1.18, 95 percent CI: 1.13, 1.24; p < 0.0001) as a significant predictor of parental undercounting. Compared with the counts obtained from photographs, parents slightly overestimated when counting melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter (mean difference = 0.63, SD 1.6). There was a significant relation between differences and averages of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001; regression line: difference = 0.12 + 0.37 x average). Nine percent of parents underestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm, while 35.8 percent of parents overestimated it. Logistic regression analysis identified freckling on the shoulders (odds ratio = 1.01, 95 percent CI: 1.00, 1.03; p = 0.036) and number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm as estimated from the photographs (odds ratio = 1.73, 95 percent CI: 1.43, 2.10; p < 0.0001) as significant predictors of parental undercounting. The concordance correlation coefficient indicated that agreement between parental and photograph counts was high for both melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter (table 2).

Agreement between nevus counts obtained from photographs and dermatologist counts
Compared with the dermatologist counts, nevus counts obtained from photographs underestimated the number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter (mean difference = -2.9, SD 4.0; figure 3). There was a significant negative relation between differences and averages (r = -0.65, p < 0.0001; regression line: difference = -0.09 - 0.35 x average), showing that differences between counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter obtained from photographs and those made by the dermatologist increased with the number of melanocytic nevi on the child's back as assessed by the dermatologist. In 79.2 percent of photographs, counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter were lower than those made by the dermatologist. Logistic regression analysis identified number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter as assessed by the dermatologist (odds ratio = 1.16, 95 percent CI: 1.02, 1.31; p = 0.025) as the only significant predictor of undercounting from photographs. Counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm taken from photographs were slightly lower than counts made by the dermatologist (mean difference = -0.17, SD 0.87), and there was a significant relation between differences and averages (r = -0.38, p = 0.001; regression line: difference = 0.02 - 0.20 x average). According to the concordance correlation coefficient, agreement between photographic and dermatologic counts was high for melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and very high for melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter (table 2). The number of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm was underestimated on nine photographs (11.7 percent).

Parental problems in assessing melanocytic nevi
Of the 324 diagrams of the back that were assessed, 159 (49.1 percent) showed a pattern of melanocytic nevi that was subjectively very similar to that seen on the photograph; 148 diagrams (45.7 percent) showed a pattern similar to that seen on the photograph; and 17 diagrams (5.2 percent) showed a pattern judged to be unlike that of the photograph. Diagrams of children with low counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter were less likely to have a pattern considered similar to the one seen in the photograph than diagrams of children with many melanocytic nevi (p = 0.027). No other factors were found to significantly influence the subjective assessment of similarity.

A direct comparison of the diagrams completed by the parents with the slides allowed an evaluation of the problems parents had encountered when assessing their children's melanocytic nevi. Parents identified a total of 2,178 assessable lesions as melanocytic nevi. Of these lesions, 167 (7.7 percent) were classified as melanocytic nevi less than 2 mm in diameter by the experienced non-medical-examiner (S. L. H.) who reviewed the photographs. Seventy-six parents (23.5 percent) had difficulty in adhering to the 2-mm cutoff; however, most (73.7 percent) of the parents who included melanocytic nevi under 2 mm in their counts generally included only one or two such lesions. A total of 120 parents (37.0 percent) included melanocytic nevi that were outside the area defined as the back, with lesions on the shoulders causing the greatest amount of error (113 parents' marking 223 lesions). Similarly, 12 parents included 14 lesions that were on the buttocks and four parents included four lesions that were on the arm in their melanocytic nevus counts for the back. Nine of these parents included lesions from more than one site other than the back in their counts of "back" melanocytic nevi. Eleven (0.5 percent) of the 2,178 assessable lesions detected by parents were incorrectly classified as melanocytic nevi, and another 63 lesions (2.9 percent) were not visible to the observer when the photographs were studied. In comparison with the photographs, parents correctly classified 1,696 lesions (77.9 percent) as back melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
In this study, parental assessment of melanocytic nevi on the backs of their children was found to be in good agreement with counts made by an experienced dermatologist and counts obtained from photographic slides. Because this study appears to have been the first to evaluate the validity of parents' counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter in their children, direct comparisons with the literature are limited. Studies focusing on concordance between and within health professionals have found better agreement for more experienced observers (23Go, 30Go) and better agreement if all melanocytic nevi, as opposed to only palpable nevi or nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter, are counted (20GoGo–22Go). The latter finding is consistent with the problems caused by the arbitrary 2-mm cutoff used in the present study. However, some of this error may have been due to parents' including melanocytic nevi that they knew were too small or outside the boundaries of the defined area in order to ensure that these nevi would be checked by the dermatologist during the subsequent examination. Interestingly, none of the parental factors considered, including level of education, had a significant impact on the accuracy of parental counting.

The results of the few studies that have compared self-reports of melanocytic nevi with clinical assessments are difficult to compare directly because of differences in design and analysis (30GoGoGoGo–34Go). Three studies concluded that self-assessment of melanocytic nevi (whole-body self-counts of large (>=5 mm) melanocytic nevi, counts of palpable melanocytic nevi on the arm and counts of large melanocytic nevi on the whole body, and counts of melanocytic nevi on the trunk) was quite comparable to counts derived from clinical examinations, and self-assessment was therefore suggested as a useful way of identifying people at risk for cutaneous melanoma (31Go, 32Go, 35Go). In contrast, three other studies found rather poor agreement between self-reports of melanocytic nevi and physician-conducted counts (counts of atypical melanocytic nevi on the lower extremities in women, four categories of severity of "moliness" shown in whole-body diagrams compared with counts of melanocytic nevi on the arm, and whole-body counts of melanocytic nevi and atypical melanocytic nevi) (30Go, 33Go, 34Go). In addition, one study showed that the reproducibility of self-counts of palpable melanocytic nevi on the arm was inadequate (36Go).

Assessment of melanocytic nevi by another person (e.g., a parent assessing a child) is arguably an improvement over skin self-examination. Therefore, it is not surprising that in this study, agreement between the parental counts, the dermatologist's counts, and the counts obtained from photographs was reasonably good, particularly for melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter. However, these findings do not necessarily imply that minimally instructed laypersons are capable of distinguishing melanocytic nevi from other pigmented lesions in adult subjects.

Parental estimates of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter were lower on average than counts made by the dermatologist and counts obtained from the photographs, and the likelihood of underestimation increased with the number of nevi. Parents were instructed not to count a pigmented lesion if they were not certain it was a melanocytic nevus. Although this approach may have led to underestimation of melanocytic nevi, the benefits of this approach were evident in that relatively few false-positive lesions were recorded. The conservative instructions given to parents may explain why the presence of freckling contributed to parental underestimation of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter in comparison with the photograph counts (n = 324). Although freckling was not found to be a significant predictor of parental underestimation of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter relative to the dermatologist's counts (p = 0.083), the sample was relatively small (n = 77).

Although we do not believe that parents should replace physicians in the counting of melanocytic nevi in epidemiologic surveys, our results suggest that parents are quite capable of recognizing and counting melanocytic nevi on their children's skin using an instrument that includes simple text and color photographs showing what to count and what not to count. Parents should be encouraged to examine their children's skin regularly, since this practice may imprint the routine of skin examination on the children and lead to greater skin familiarity in adulthood and an increased likelihood of detecting suspicious changes sooner (37Go). This practice would also facilitate the early identification of children at increased risk of developing melanoma in the future, so that their families could be educated to be vigilant in protecting them from overexposure to sunlight.

Assessment of melanocytic nevi from good-quality standardized photographs (25Go) offers a number of advantages. Firstly, evaluation of photographs can occur after a physical examination in a standardized manner and with a smaller number of trained examiners. This approach removes the time constraints and other pressures (e.g., crying, wriggling children) that may diminish the accuracy of counts of melanocytic nevi made in the field. Secondly, photographs can be reviewed repeatedly and by independent observers, improving the ease with which intra- and interobserver reliability studies can be undertaken. Lastly, photographs make it possible to follow the natural history of individual melanocytic nevi and accurately monitor their growth in cohort studies. The only obvious disadvantage of using photographs to replace counting in the field is the need to adhere to an arbitrary size cutoff. The naked eye can distinguish melanocytic nevi on the skin that are very much smaller than 2 mm in diameter, while the resolution of a photograph is such that it is not always possible to see these tiny melanocytic nevi on a projected image (24Go). Further investigation is required to determine whether this problem can be overcome using high-resolution digital images.

The present study showed that agreement between counts of melanocytic nevi obtained from photographs and counts performed by an experienced dermatologist was high for nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter and almost perfect for nevi greater than or equal to 5 mm in diameter. However, similar to the case with the parents, photograph counts were significantly more likely to underestimate numbers of melanocytic nevi in comparison with dermatologist counts when the subject had many melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter. These findings are in good concordance with the results of the only other published study that compared photograph counts with direct counts made by trained examiners (21Go). Thus, future epidemiologic studies in children might safely replace dermatologist field counts of melanocytic nevi greater than or equal to 2 mm in diameter with high-quality photographs, if only the posterior trunk is being assessed. However, before nevus counts from photographs can replace whole-body counts conducted by physicians in the field, a standard approach to taking such photographs must be developed for body sites other than the back (25Go). For example, it may be necessary to draw a boundary between the inner and outer surfaces of some body sites (e.g., limbs) before taking photographs, to ensure comparability in the areas counted. In addition, reliability studies of nevus counts obtained from photographs should be conducted.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This work was supported by a project grant from the Queensland Cancer Fund. Salary support for two of the authors was provided by Queensland Health (S. L. H.) and the Melanoma Unit, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney (J. K. R.).


    NOTES
 
Correspondence to Dr. Simone Lee Harrison, School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia (e-mail: simone.harrison{at}jcu.edu.au).


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Armstrong BK, English DR. Epidemiologic studies. In: Balch CM, Houghton AN, Milton GW, et al, eds. Cutaneous melanoma. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Company, 1992:12–26.
  2. Garbe C, Buettner PG, Weiss J, et al. Risk factors for developing cutaneous melanoma and criteria for identifying persons at risk: multicenter case-control study of the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry of the German Dermatological Society. J Invest Dermatol 1994;102:695–9.[Abstract]
  3. Bataille V, Bishop JA, Sasieni P, et al. Risk of cutaneous melanoma in relation to the numbers, types and sites of naevi: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 1996;73:1605–11.[ISI][Medline]
  4. Elder DE. Human melanocytic neoplasms and their etiologic relationship with sunlight. J Invest Dermatol 1989;92(suppl):297S–303S.[Abstract]
  5. Krueger S, Garbe C, Buettner PG, et al. Epidemiologic evidence for the role of melanocytic nevi as risk markers and direct precursors of cutaneous malignant melanoma: results of a case control study in melanoma patients and nonmelanoma control subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992;26:920–6.[ISI][Medline]
  6. Armstrong BK. The epidemiology of melanoma: where do we go from here? In: Gallagher RP, Elwood JM, eds. Epidemi-ological aspects of cutaneous malignant melanoma. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994:307–9.
  7. Skender-Kalnenas TM, English DR, Heenan PJ. Benign melanocytic lesions: risk markers or precursors of cutaneous melanoma? J Am Acad Dermatol 1995;33:1000–7.[ISI][Medline]
  8. Gallagher RP, McLean DI, Yang CP, et al. Suntan, sunburn, and pigmentation factors and the frequency of acquired melanocytic nevi in children. Similarities to melanoma: the Vancouver Mole Study. Arch Dermatol 1990;126:770–6.[Abstract]
  9. Kelly JW, Rivers JK, MacLennan R, et al. Sunlight: a major factor associated with the development of melanocytic nevi in Australian schoolchildren. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994;30:40–8.[ISI][Medline]
  10. Fritschi L, McHenry P, Green A, et al. Naevi in schoolchildren in Scotland and Australia. Br J Dermatol 1994;130:599–603.[ISI][Medline]
  11. Harrison SL, MacLennan R, Speare R, et al. Sun exposure and melanocytic naevi in young Australian children. Lancet 1994;344:1529–32.[ISI][Medline]
  12. Luther H, Altmeyer P, Garbe C, et al. Increase of melanocytic nevus counts in children during 5 years of follow-up and analysis of associated factors. Arch Dermatol 1996;132:1473–8.[Abstract]
  13. Harrison SL, MacKie RM, MacLennan R. Development of melanocytic nevi in the first three years of life. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1436–8.[Free Full Text]
  14. Titus-Ernstoff L, Ernstoff MS, Duray PH, et al. A relation between childhood sun exposure and dysplastic nevus syndrome among patients with nonfamilial melanoma. Epidemiology 1991;2:210–14.[Medline]
  15. Garbe C, Buettner PG, Weiss J, et al. Associated factors in the prevalence of more than 50 common melanocytic nevi, atypical melanocytic nevi, and actinic lentigines: multicenter case-control study of the Central Malignant Melanoma Registry of the German Dermatological Society. J Invest Dermatol 1994;102:700–5.[Abstract]
  16. Dennis LK, White E, Lee JA, et al. Constitutional factors and sun exposure in relation to nevi: a population-based cross-sectional study. Am J Epidemiol 1996;143:248–56.[Abstract]
  17. MacKie RM, English J, Aitchison TC, et al. The number and distribution of benign pigmented moles (melanocytic naevi) in a healthy British population. Br J Dermatol 1985;113:167–74.[ISI][Medline]
  18. Barnhill RL, Roush GC, Ernstoff MS, et al. Interclinician agreement on the recognition of selected gross morphological features of pigmented lesions. Studies of melanocytic nevi, V. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992;26:185–90.[ISI][Medline]
  19. Meyer LJ, Piepkorn M, Goldgar DE, et al. Interobserver concordance in discriminating clinical atypia of melanocytic nevi, and correlations with histologic atypia. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996;34:618–25.[ISI][Medline]
  20. Roush GC, Barnhill RL, Ernstoff MS, et al. Inter-clinician agreement on the recognition of clinical pigmentary characteristics of patients with cutaneous malignant melanoma. Studies of melanocytic nevi, VI. Br J Cancer 1991;64:373–6.[ISI][Medline]
  21. English DR, Armstrong BK. Melanocytic nevi in children. II. Observer variation in counting nevi. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:402–7.[Abstract]
  22. Aitken JF, Green A, Eldridge A, et al. Comparability of naevus counts between and within examiners, and comparison with computer image analysis. Br J Cancer 1994;69:487–91.[ISI][Medline]
  23. Byles JE, Hennrikus D, Sanson-Fisher R, et al. Reliability of naevus counts in identifying individuals at high risk of malignant melanoma. Br J Dermatol 1994;130:51–6.[ISI][Medline]
  24. Harrison SL. Development of melanocytic naevi (moles) in children born and raised in tropical Australia. (Doctoral thesis). Townsville, Queensland, Australia: School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, 1999.
  25. English DR, MacLennan R, Rivers J, et al. Epidemiological studies of melanocytic naevi: protocol for identifying and recording naevi. (IARC internal report no. 90/002). Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1990.
  26. Dubin N, Moseson M, Pasternak BS. Epidemiology of malignant melanoma: pigmentary traits, ultraviolet radiation and the identification of high risk populations. In: Gallagher RP, ed. Recent results in cancer research: epidemiology of malignant melanoma. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag New York, 1985:56–75.
  27. Harrison SL, Buettner PG. Do all fair-skinned Caucasians consider themselves fair? Prev Med 1999;29:349–54.[ISI][Medline]
  28. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1:307–10.[ISI][Medline]
  29. I-Kuei Lin L. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255–68.[ISI][Medline]
  30. Walter SD, Marrett LD, Hertzman C. Reliability of interviewer and subject assessments of nevus counts in a study of melanoma. J Clin Epidemiol 1991;44:633–40.[ISI][Medline]
  31. Gruber SB, Roush GC, Barnhill RL. Sensitivity and specificity of self-examination for cutaneous malignant melanoma risk factors. Am J Prev Med 1993;9:50–4.[ISI][Medline]
  32. Little P, Keefe M, White J. Self screening for risk of melanoma: validity of self mole counting by patients in a single general practice. BMJ 1995;310:912–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  33. Titus-Ernstoff L, Thoern M, Tosteson TD, et al. The accuracy of skin self-examination for atypical nevi. Epidemiology 1996;7:619–23.[ISI][Medline]
  34. Buettner PG, Garbe C. Agreement between self-assessment of melanocytic nevi by patients and dermatologic examination. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:72–7.[Abstract]
  35. Lawson DD, Moore DH, Schneider JS, et al. Nevus counting as a risk factor for melanoma: comparison of self-count with count by physician. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994;31:438–44.[ISI][Medline]
  36. Westerdahl J, Anderson H, Olsson H, et al. Reproducibility of a self-administered questionnaire for assessment of melanoma risk. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:245–51.[Abstract]
  37. Balanda KP, Stanton WR, Baade PD, et al. A measure of skin familiarity and its role in the early detection of skin cancer. Cancer Detect Prev 2000;24:156–62.[ISI][Medline]
Received for publication May 31, 2001. Accepted for publication February 24, 2002.