Dermoscopy provides a high PPV for BCC. The addition of RCM to dermoscopy increases diagnostic sensitivity, particularly in less experienced dermoscopists. Physician behavior might be different if actual referrals were made for surgery without biopsy.
This report has discussed the use of an angiographic severity index for pulmonary embolism in the analysis of pulmonary angiograms from 160 patients admitted to the Urokinase-Pulmonary Embolism Trial. Angiographic studies done before and after treatment with urokinase or heparin were analyzed independently by three radiologists who had no knowledge of treatment assignment. A subjective evaluation and a subsequent objective recording of abnormalities were made. The computation of a severity index was based on a numerical grading system for definite abnormalities specific for pulmonary embolism (intraluminal filling defects and vascular obstructions). The procedure for computing the severity index was simple enough that recorded abnormalities were coded and punched by a statistical clerk and analyzed by computer. Correlations between subjective evaluations and objective severity indices were high. There was excellent agreement among the three radiologists for both subjective and objective methods. Highly significant treatment differences were detected. The angiographic severity index might help to classify patients, predict prognosis, plan clinical studies, and assess treatment effects.
Metastasis from malignant melanoma (MM) usually first presents in the draining lymph node basin and thus sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is a staging tool used to predict risk of metastases and death in higher risk tumors and has become the standard of care. Differences in the processing and methods used in the histopathological examination of SLNs can affect the positivity rate for metastatic MM because isolated MM deposits may be small and variably distributed in the SLN. The examination of SLNs is not standardized. The authors surveyed institutions across the United States who process SLNs for MM to better characterize the current methods used and to suggest a standardized approach to improve the reliability of the SLN biopsy. A survey of 142 academic institutions in the United States regarding the methods used in the evaluation of the SLN biopsy for MM was conducted. Thirty-two institutions responded. Eighty-one percent of the institutions (26 of 32) had a protocol that they used for SLN examination. In regards to gross dissection, 28% of the responders (9 of 32) initially bivalve (cut the SLN in half), whereas 59% (19 of 32) use a bread loaf technique, cutting the SLN at even intervals without specifically commenting about orientation to the hilum. The number of levels initially cut from the SLN block varied from 1 to 8 levels per block. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents (12 of 31) routinely order immunohistochemistry before evaluation of the initial hematoxylin- and eosin-stained sections. Eighty percent of the respondents (24 of 30) report the maximum dimension of the metastatic tumor deposit. The response rate was low (22%), and most respondents did not indicate how many SLN accessions were performed at their institution each year. Histologic protocols for processing SLNs for MM vary among institutions. Different methods of handling SLNs result in varying sensitivities for detection of metastases. Data derived from these varied approaches to develop and determine prognostic and staging categories may be inconsistent. A standardized yet practical approach is needed to provide reliable information on which prognosis can be determined and therapeutic guidelines can be based. The hope is for dermatologists and those treating patients with MM to understand the intricacies and inconsistencies involved in performance and interpretation of this key staging tool.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.