Impact of second opinion pathology review in the diagnosis and management of atypical melanocytic lesions: A prospective study of the Italian Melanoma Intergroup (IMI) and EORTC Melanoma Group

Ancillary immunohistochemistry testing for loss of p16 in melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies

BACKGROUND

Ancillary immunohistochemistry testing for p16 loss has been proposed as a diagnostic tool for melanoma, but its accuracy remains uncertain.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted on 26 studies involving 979 melanomas and 974 nevi.

RESULTS

Through bivariate analysis of data across all cut-off values, the sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38, 0.70) and 0.85 (95% CI: 0.70, 0.94), respectively. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy fell below recommended thresholds for effective tests, but subgroup analysis suggested that p16 loss could aid in diagnosing ambiguous lesions as melanoma in certain scenarios. However, the presence of p16 expression in these contexts does not definitively rule out melanoma. The findings were limited by underpowered exploratory study designs at risk for bias in patient selection and test interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

While the use of p16 immunohistochemistry for detecting melanoma is not universally reliable, it may serve as a confirmatory test in differential diagnoses involving common, congenital, acral, Spitz, and deep penetrating nevi. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to validate its utility. Until then, the application of p16 immunohistochemistry in melanoma diagnosis should be regarded as experimental.

Diagnostic discordance among histopathological reviewers of melanocytic lesions

BACKGROUND

Histopathological examination is adequate for the diagnosis of most cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms. However, there is a subset that is either difficult to definitively diagnose or would have diagnostic disagreement upon review by multiple dermatopathologists if a more exhaustive review was performed.

METHODS

Melanocytic lesions underwent an independent, blinded diagnostic histopathological review of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. Each lesion was reviewed by three to six dermatopathologists and categorized as benign, malignant, or unknown malignant potential (UMP). Diagnoses were grouped as concordant (all the same designation); opposing (received benign and malignant designations); majority (single designation with the highest number of diagnoses, no benign/malignant opposing designations); and non-definitive (equal number of non-opposing designations [i.e., benign/UMP or malignant/UMP]). Lesions with equivocal designations (concordant or majority UMP, opposing, majority, and non-definitive) were utilized in a patient treatment model of projected surgical treatment discrepancies.

RESULTS

In total, 3317 cases were reviewed, and 23.8% of lesions received equivocal diagnoses. Of these, 7.3% were majority benign, 4.8% were majority malignant, 2.7% were majority UMP, 0.5% were concordant UMP, 6.9% were opposing, and 1.6% were non-definitive. Patient treatment models of those with equivocal lesions (n = 788) revealed a potential of overall surgical treatment variations ranging from 18% to 72%, with the highest variation amongst lesions with opposing, non-definitive, or majority UMP (40%-72%) diagnoses.

CONCLUSION

Histopathologic review in this large cohort demonstrated substantial diagnostic variation, with 23.8% of cases receiving equivocal diagnoses. We identified diagnostic ambiguity even in lesions where a definitive diagnosis was previously rendered by a single real-world dermatopathologist. The combined clinical impact of diagnostic discordance or a final diagnosis of UMP is highlighted by high diagnosis-dependent treatment variation in the patient treatment model, which could be underreported in a real-world setting, where review by more than one to two dermatopathologists is relatively rare.

PRAME Is an Effective Tool for the Diagnosis of Nevus-Associated Cutaneous Melanoma

(1) Background: Nevus-associated cutaneous melanoma (CM) is relatively common in the clinical practice of dermatopathologists. The correct diagnosis and staging of nevus-associated cutaneous melanoma (CM) mainly relies on the correct discrimination between benign and malignant cells. Recently, PRAME has emerged as a promising immunohistochemical marker of malignant melanocytes. (2) Methods: PRAME immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed in 69 cases of nevus-associated CMs. Its expression was evaluated using a score ranging from 0 to 4+ based on the percentage of melanocytic cells with a nuclear expression. PRAME IHC sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were assessed. Furthermore, the agreement between morphological data and PRAME expression was evaluated for the diagnosis of melanoma components and nevus components. (3) Results: PRAME IHC showed a sensitivity of 59%, a specificity of 100%, a positive predictive value of 100%, and a negative predictive value of 71%. The diagnostic agreement between morphology and PRAME IHC was fair (Cohen's Kappa: 0.3); the diagnostic agreement regarding the benign nevus components associated with CM was perfect (Cohen's Kappa: 1.0). PRAME was significantly more expressed in thick invasive CMs than in thin cases (p = 0.02). (4) Conclusions: PRAME IHC should be considered for the diagnostic evaluation of nevus-associated CM and is most useful in cases of thick melanomas. Pathologists should carefully consider that a PRAME-positive cellular population within the context of a nevus could indicate a CM associated with the nevus. A negative result does not rule out this possibility.