Search

Background: Melanoma in situ and dysplastic nevi with severe atypia present overlapping histopathologic features. Reflectance confocal microscopy findings can be integrated with the dermatopathology report to improve differentiation between melanoma and dysplastic nevi with severe atypia., Objective: To compare prevalence of reflectance confocal microscopy findings between melanoma in situ and dysplastic nevi with severe atypia., Methods: This retrospective observational study compared reflectance confocal microscopy findings in dermatopathologically diagnosed dysplastic nevi with severe atypia and melanoma in situ, collected between 2007 and 2017 at a private pigmented-lesion clinic. Concordant pathologic diagnosis was defined as unanimous agreement between 3 dermatopathologists who independently reviewed all cases; all other cases were classified as discordant., Results: The study included 112 lesions, 62 concordant melanomas in situ, 28 concordant dysplastic nevi with severe atypia, and 22 discordant lesions. In comparing reflectance confocal microscopy findings in concordant cases, melanoma in situ showed more frequently than dysplastic nevi with severe atypia the presence of epidermal atypical melanocytes as round cells (19/62 vs 0/28; P < .001) and dendritic cells (50/62 vs 6/28; P < .001), as well as a diffuse distribution of epidermal atypical melanocytes (50/54 vs 3/6; P = .002). In contrast, dysplastic nevi with severe atypia showed the presence of dense melanocytic nests more frequently than melanoma in situ did (15/28 vs 14/62; P = .003)., Limitations: The study was based on a limited number of lesions originating from a single clinic., Conclusions: Reflectance confocal microscopy findings may help differentiate a subset of dysplastic nevi with severe atypia from melanoma in situ., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several technologies have been developed to aid dermatologists in the detection of melanoma in vivo including dermoscopy, multispectral digital skin lesion analysis (MDSLA), and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM). To our knowledge, there have been no studies directly comparing MDSLA and RCM., Objective: We conducted a repeated measures analysis comparing the sensitivity and specificity of MDSLA and RCM in the detection of melanoma (n = 55 lesions from 36 patients)., Methods: Study patients (n = 36) with atypical-appearing pigmented lesions (n = 55) underwent imaging by both RCM and MDSLA. Lesions were biopsied and analyzed by histopathology., Results: RCM exhibited superior test metrics (P = .001, McNemar test) compared with MDSLA. Respectively, sensitivity measures were 85.7% and 71.4%, and specificity rates were 66.7% and 25.0%., Limitations: The sample size was relatively small and was collected from only one dermatologist's patient base; there was some degree of dermatopathologist interobserver variability; and only one confocalist performed the RCM image evaluations., Conclusion: RCM is a useful adjunct during clinical assessment of in vivo lesions suspicious for melanoma or those requiring re-excision because of high level of dysplasia or having features consistent with an atypical melanocytic nevus with severe cytologic atypia., (Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

PEComas are mesenchymal neoplasms composed of perivascular epithelioid cells (PEC) and include a spectrum of tumors. PEComas and malignant melanoma share common morphological, immunohistochemical, and ultrastructural features, such as epithelioid cell morphology and melanocytic immunophenotype. Melanocytic markers commonly expressed in PEC tumors include HMB-45, Melan-A/MART-1, tyrosinase, microphthalmia transcription factor (MITF), and occasionally, S100. Given this morphological and immunophenotypical overlap, the differential diagnosis between a PEComa and malignant melanoma can represent a challenge. Additional diagnostic difficulty is the differentiation of melanoma and PEComa from clear cell sarcoma that is indistinguishable from melanoma based on the immunohistochemical profile. Recent studies have shown that MUM-1, a known lymphocyte marker shows positive immunostaining in nevi and melanomas, its expression in PEComas and clear cell sarcoma, however, has not been previously addressed. In this study, the authors analyzed MUM-1 expression using immunohistochemistry in PEComas (n = 8), the PEComa family members, angiomyolipomas (n = 13), and clear cell sarcomas (n = 11) and compared the staining pattern with malignant melanomas (n = 25), both primary (n = 14) and metastatic (n = 11). It was found that 92.3% of primary melanomas and 81.3% of metastatic melanomas were MUM-1 positive. In contrast, MUM-1 was only weakly positive in only 25% of PEComas and negative in all angiomyolipomas. MUM-1 expression was noted in 72.7% of clear cell sarcomas. The study demonstrated differential MUM-1 expression between PEComas and other true melanocytic tumors and suggested that the addition of MUM-1 to the usual panel of melanocyte markers could be a helpful adjunctive study to aid in the differential diagnosis between these entities.