Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Dermoscopy has limited specificity for equivocal melanocytic lesions, causing unnecessary excisions. Reflectance confocal microscopy offers noninvasive, near-histological imaging, but evidence remains scattered. This review graded evidence across six melanoma applications (diagnosis, excision reduction, margin mapping, treatment monitoring, cost-effectiveness, and teledermatology) and derived recommendations. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PROSPERO CRD420261329819), PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched (January 2005 to March 2026). Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (QUADAS-2, AMSTAR-2, CHEC). Evidence was graded (National Health and Medical Research Council) and synthesized narratively. Seventy primary studies and 13 systematic reviews were included. As a second-level test after dermoscopy, confocal microscopy preserved sensitivity (pooled 92-94%) and improved specificity (82 vs. 42% at 90% sensitivity). In the only diagnostic randomized trial, the number needed to excise fell 43%; real-world cohorts spared 23-61% of biopsies. For lentigo maligna, confocal microscopy was more sensitive and specific than dermoscopy and outperformed clinical and dermoscopic assessment for treatment failure; presurgical mapping reduced surgical stages (1.7 vs. 1.1). Two economic evaluations reported 27-49% lower costs per melanoma. Evidence was weaker for amelanotic, nodular, and acral melanoma, scoring systems, and teledermatology; risk of bias was often high or unclear. Four of 13 recommendations reached grade B, eight grade C, and one grade D. Evidence supports confocal microscopy as a second-level tool in specialist practice for dermoscopically equivocal melanocytic lesions, facial lentigo maligna diagnosis, reducing unnecessary excisions, and presurgical margin mapping. Multicentre randomized trials should precede broader adoption.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Marques et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: