Is there any benefit to performing skin photography or digital surveillance?
A recent article in the Australasian Journal of Dermatology compared the results of traditional melanoma surveillance, which involves regular full-skin examinations and immediate removal of suspicious lesions, to the results of two newer surveillance methods: total body photography (TBP) and sequential digital dermoscopy imaging (SDDI). They found that traditional surveillance resulted in a higher ratio of in situ to invasive melanomas (4.59:1) and a lower incidence of thick invasive melanomas (<1%) than TBP and SDDI. Delayed excision, which is inherent to photographic monitoring, carries at least some risk of melanoma progressing from a lower to a higher risk category.
This data raises the possibility that traditional skin examination and biopsy techniques (instead of photographic monitoring) may be safer and more effective.