ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Atypical intraepidermal melanocytic proliferation (AIMP) is a general term assigned to melanocytic proliferations of uncertain biological potential when a definitive histopathological diagnosis cannot be achieved. There are few data available describing the possibility of malignancy of AIMP, or ways to further define diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of diagnostic change of AIMP to melanoma or melanoma in situ (MIS) after conventional excision. In addition, to determine the role of immunohistochemistry (IHC) in defining AIMP biopsies. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional, single-center review of biopsies with a diagnosis of AIMP with a follow-up conventional excision from 2012-2016 was performed. In a separate analysis, a search was performed for AIMP biopsied lesions in which IHC was subsequently performed. RESULTS: The rate of diagnostic change of AIMP to MIS was 4.8% (8/167) after excision. Punch biopsy was a risk factor for diagnostic change to MIS (odds ratio 12.94, confidence interval 2.56-65.38, P = 0.008). The rate of diagnostic change of AIMP biopsies after examining with IHC was 21.3% (34/160) to MIS and 4.4% (7/160) to melanoma. CONCLUSION: The possibility of malignancy of AIMP lesions must be taken into consideration when counseling patients and when planning treatment options. IHC is a useful tool and should be used in the evaluation of AIMP specimens.
Subject(s)
Cell Proliferation , Melanocytes/pathology , Melanoma/pathology , Skin Neoplasms/pathology , Terminology as Topic , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Biomarkers, Tumor/analysis , Biopsy , Child , Child, Preschool , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Immunohistochemistry , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Melanocytes/chemistry , Melanoma/chemistry , Melanoma/classification , Melanoma/surgery , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , Skin Neoplasms/chemistry , Skin Neoplasms/classification , Skin Neoplasms/surgery , Young AdultABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: There are few studies documenting dermatological consultations in the emergency setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nature, purpose, and diagnostic accuracy of emergency care physicians in all the dermatology consults evaluated by the Department of Dermatology of the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all the consultation reports pertaining to patients evaluated at 4 emergency departments served from July 1, 2007, to June 30, 2013. The data collected from each consultation report consisted of the demographic information of the patient, the name of the consulting hospital, the initial diagnostic impression, the diagnostic impression of a dermatologist, and the procedures, if any, performed by that dermatologist. RESULTS: A total of 429 patients were evaluated (53% men, 47% women) from July 2007 through June 2013. The most common diagnosis was infectious process (37%), followed by eczema (14%) and drug-induced skin reactions (12%). Seventeen percent (17%) of the cases for which consultations were sought were considered true dermatological emergencies. Forty-six percent of cases resulted in no diagnostic impression from the consulting physician. Of the cases that did result in diagnoses, these diagnoses were later changed by a dermatologist in 34% of the cases. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the role of the dermatologist in the emergency department is very important. In addition, better education in the management of common skin disorders and the identification of true dermatological emergencies should be stressed during medical school and in residency training programs of specialties such as emergency medicine and those that offer primary care.
