B Aika Shoo1, Richard W Sagebiel, Mohammed Kashani-Sabet. 1. Melanoma Center, Department of Dermatology, University of California, San Francisco, 1600 Divisadero St, Fourth Floor, San Francisco, CA 94143-1706, USA. b.aika.shoo@gmail.com
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Histopathologic analysis remains the gold standard for the pathologic diagnosis of melanoma. Numerous histologic criteria are used to diagnose melanoma, but none alone are sufficient to establish this diagnosis. Therefore, differentiating between benign pigmented lesions and melanoma may be controversial. Although several studies have examined the interobserver variability in the pathological diagnosis of melanoma, the prevalence of discordant diagnoses of melanocytic neoplasms is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the discordance rate of melanoma diagnoses referred to our pigmented lesion clinic, a subset of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Department of Dermatology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Melanoma Center during a 2-year period. METHODS: A total of 392 new patients given a diagnosis of thin melanoma (melanoma in situ, stage IA, stage IB) or benign nevus were referred in 2006 and 2007, with initial diagnoses rendered by an outside dermatopathologist or surgical pathologist. Subsequently, these specimens were re-evaluated by routine histopathologic examination at the UCSF Dermatopathology Service and a distinct diagnosis was rendered. The two available diagnoses were compared, and discordance was defined as the lack of agreement between two pathologists when rendering a benign versus malignant versus ambiguous diagnosis. RESULTS: The discordance rate of melanomas and nevi between the referring centers and UCSF was 14.3%. LIMITATIONS: This review was limited in that there were few patients with benign pigmented lesions referred to the pigmented lesion clinic at UCSF. CONCLUSION: The level of discordance in the routine histopathologic interpretation of melanocytic neoplasms can be high. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Histopathologic analysis remains the gold standard for the pathologic diagnosis of melanoma. Numerous histologic criteria are used to diagnose melanoma, but none alone are sufficient to establish this diagnosis. Therefore, differentiating between benign pigmented lesions and melanoma may be controversial. Although several studies have examined the interobserver variability in the pathological diagnosis of melanoma, the prevalence of discordant diagnoses of melanocytic neoplasms is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the discordance rate of melanoma diagnoses referred to our pigmented lesion clinic, a subset of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Department of Dermatology and Comprehensive Cancer Center Melanoma Center during a 2-year period. METHODS: A total of 392 new patients given a diagnosis of thin melanoma (melanoma in situ, stage IA, stage IB) or benign nevus were referred in 2006 and 2007, with initial diagnoses rendered by an outside dermatopathologist or surgical pathologist. Subsequently, these specimens were re-evaluated by routine histopathologic examination at the UCSF Dermatopathology Service and a distinct diagnosis was rendered. The two available diagnoses were compared, and discordance was defined as the lack of agreement between two pathologists when rendering a benign versus malignant versus ambiguous diagnosis. RESULTS: The discordance rate of melanomas and nevi between the referring centers and UCSF was 14.3%. LIMITATIONS: This review was limited in that there were few patients with benign pigmented lesions referred to the pigmented lesion clinic at UCSF. CONCLUSION: The level of discordance in the routine histopathologic interpretation of melanocytic neoplasms can be high. Copyright 2010 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Thomas E Matthews; Ivan R Piletic; M Angelica Selim; Mary Jane Simpson; Warren S Warren Journal: Sci Transl Med Date: 2011-02-23 Impact factor: 17.956
Authors: D Shitara; G Tell-Martí; C Badenas; M M S S Enokihara; L Alós; A B Larque; N Michalany; J A Puig-Butille; C Carrera; J Malvehy; S Puig; E Bagatin Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Michael N Kent; Thomas G Olsen; Theresa A Feeser; Katherine C Tesno; John C Moad; Michael P Conroy; Mary Jo Kendrick; Sean R Stephenson; Michael R Murchland; Ayesha U Khan; Elizabeth A Peacock; Alexa Brumfiel; Michael A Bottomley Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Linda Gao; Karin van den Hurk; Peter T M Moerkerk; Jelle J Goeman; Samuel Beck; Nelleke A Gruis; Joost J van den Oord; Véronique J Winnepenninckx; Manon van Engeland; Remco van Doorn Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2014-07-07 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Berta M Geller; Paul D Frederick; Stevan R Knezevich; Jason P Lott; Heidi D Nelson; Linda J Titus; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy L Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Martin A Weinstock; David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Luiz Guilherme Martins Castro; Maria Cristina Messina; Walter Loureiro; Ricardo Silvestre Macarenco; João Pedreira Duprat Neto; Thais Helena Bello Di Giacomo; Flávia Vasques Bittencourt; Renato Marchiori Bakos; Sérgio Schrader Serpa; Hamilton Ometto Stolf; Gabriel Gontijo Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.896