This Article  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joseph C. Alper, MD
Department of Dermatology Roger Williams General Hospital 825 Chalkstone Ave Providence, RI 02908

Arch Dermatol. 1986;122(5):503.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

I would like to thank Dr Virginia Sybert for her excellent letter—particularly since it validates my choice of title for the editorial.

I accept all of Virginia's criticisms concerning the study by Rhodes et al as causing potential serious flaws. However, that does not necessarily make the data worthless. It is possible, with an ideally designed study, that the magnitude of the risk would be less, but that small congenital nevi would still have a malignant transformation rate greater than that of acquired nevi. Or, perhaps, such an ideally designed study would finally show that there is no risk at all. At present, we do not know. But neither do we know that the flaws in the study by Rhodes et al totally negate their conclusions. Therefore, I still find it prudent to remove small congenital nevi as soon after birth as possible given that (1) the procedure is essentially . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?