BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy (dermatoscopy, epiluminescence microscopy) is increasingly employed for the preoperative detection of cutaneous melanoma; dermoscopic features of pigmented skin lesions have been previously defined using histopathology as the key to the code. In a preliminary study on 10 cases evaluated by nine dermoscopists and nine histopathologists, the authors experienced that when at least two dermoscopists disagree in evaluating a melanocytic lesion, even histopathologic consultations may give equivocal results. METHODS: One hundred seven melanocytic skin lesions, consecutively excised because of equivocal clinical and/or dermoscopic features, were retrospectively examined by eight dermoscopists and eight histopathologists; the diagnostic interobserver agreement was calculated by means of the Schouten k statistics. After histopathologic consultations, all 107 lesions underwent unblinded dermoscopic re-evaluation in order to find which dermoscopic features had given rise to histopathologic diagnostic difficulties. RESULTS: The interobserver ageement was good for both dermoscopy (k = 0.53) and histopathology (k = 0.74). Out of 48 cases evaluated by the dermoscopists in complete accordance, only 8 (16.7%) received at least one conflicting histopathologic diagnosis. Instead, among the remaining 59 cases with at least one disagreeing dermoscopic diagnosis, 21 (35.6%) received at least one disagreeing histopathologic diagnosis. The unblinded dermoscopic re-evaluation showed that five out of seven lesions with clear-cut regression structures were histopathologically controversial. CONCLUSIONS: At least for selected and reasonably difficult lesions, a diagnostic discrepancy among formally trained dermoscopists seems to be predictive for a diagnostic disagreement among histopathologists. Lesions showing clear-cut regression structures are prone to give some histopathologic disagreement. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Dermoscopy (dermatoscopy, epiluminescence microscopy) is increasingly employed for the preoperative detection of cutaneous melanoma; dermoscopic features of pigmented skin lesions have been previously defined using histopathology as the key to the code. In a preliminary study on 10 cases evaluated by nine dermoscopists and nine histopathologists, the authors experienced that when at least two dermoscopists disagree in evaluating a melanocytic lesion, even histopathologic consultations may give equivocal results. METHODS: One hundred seven melanocytic skin lesions, consecutively excised because of equivocal clinical and/or dermoscopic features, were retrospectively examined by eight dermoscopists and eight histopathologists; the diagnostic interobserver agreement was calculated by means of the Schouten k statistics. After histopathologic consultations, all 107 lesions underwent unblinded dermoscopic re-evaluation in order to find which dermoscopic features had given rise to histopathologic diagnostic difficulties. RESULTS: The interobserver ageement was good for both dermoscopy (k = 0.53) and histopathology (k = 0.74). Out of 48 cases evaluated by the dermoscopists in complete accordance, only 8 (16.7%) received at least one conflicting histopathologic diagnosis. Instead, among the remaining 59 cases with at least one disagreeing dermoscopic diagnosis, 21 (35.6%) received at least one disagreeing histopathologic diagnosis. The unblinded dermoscopic re-evaluation showed that five out of seven lesions with clear-cut regression structures were histopathologically controversial. CONCLUSIONS: At least for selected and reasonably difficult lesions, a diagnostic discrepancy among formally trained dermoscopists seems to be predictive for a diagnostic disagreement among histopathologists. Lesions showing clear-cut regression structures are prone to give some histopathologic disagreement. Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Lisa M Reisch; Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Stevan Knezevich; Berta M Geller; Gary Longton; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Naomi Chuchu; Rubeta N Matin; Kai Yuen Wong; Roger Benjamin Aldridge; Alana Durack; Abha Gulati; Sue Ann Chan; Louise Johnston; Susan E Bayliss; Jo Leonardi-Bee; Yemisi Takwoingi; Clare Davenport; Colette O'Sullivan; Hamid Tehrani; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Jacqueline Dinnes; Jonathan J Deeks; Naomi Chuchu; Lavinia Ferrante di Ruffano; Rubeta N Matin; David R Thomson; Kai Yuen Wong; Roger Benjamin Aldridge; Rachel Abbott; Monica Fawzy; Susan E Bayliss; Matthew J Grainge; Yemisi Takwoingi; Clare Davenport; Kathie Godfrey; Fiona M Walter; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Seamus R McWhirter; David L Duffy; Katie J Lee; Glen Wimberley; Philip McClenahan; Natalie Ling; Marco Ardigo; Helmut Schaider; H Peter Soyer; Richard A Sturm Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gerardo Ferrara; Zsolt Argenyi; Giuseppe Argenziano; Rino Cerio; Lorenzo Cerroni; Arturo Di Blasi; Elisa A A Feudale; Caterina M Giorgio; Cesare Massone; Oscar Nappi; Carlo Tomasini; Carmelo Urso; Iris Zalaudek; Harald Kittler; H Peter Soyer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-04-30 Impact factor: 3.240