Table 1.
Frequencies of different cutaneous phenotypic features in the study cohort
| Projected adult size of largest naevus (cm) | n = 265 |
| < 10 | 42 (15·9) |
| 10–20 | 50 (18·9) |
| 20–40 | 55 (20·8) |
| 40–60 | 46 (17·4) |
| > 60 | 64 (24·2) |
| No one larger lesiona | 8 (30·2) |
| Site of largest CMN | n = 157 |
| Face | 9 (5·7) |
| Scalp | 19 (12·1) |
| Trunk | 82 (52·2) |
| Limb | 18 (11·5) |
| Scalp/neck/trunk | 13 (8·3) |
| Face/scalp | 12 (7·6) |
| No one larger lesiona | 4 (2·6) |
| Total number of other naevi at birth (previously termed satellites)b | n = 165 |
| 0 | 14 (8·5) |
| < 10 | 54 (32·7) |
| 10–20 | 33 (20·0) |
| 20–25 | 30 (18·2) |
| 50–100 | 18 (10·9) |
| 100–200 | 10 (6·1) |
| > 200 | 6 (3·6) |
Data are n (%). CMN, congenital melanocytic naevi. aIndividuals with ‘no one larger lesion’ do not have one naevus clearly bigger than all the others but rather a collection of similar‐sized lesions. This phenotype used to be called ‘multiple CMN’ but owing to the normal understanding of the word ‘multiple’ we think this term is confusing and best avoided in this context. bThe term ‘satellite naevus’ is sometimes used to mean any other naevus on a patient with CMN which was not the largest naevus. We no longer use this term as it implies some sort of hierarchy and geographical relationship between the largest naevus and the smaller naevus,22 and all these are, in fact, CMN that have arisen from the same postzygotic mutation and may not necessarily be close to each other. Within the frustrating limits of the current, relatively inaccurate classification system for CMN we therefore prefer to count the total number of naevi.