Vidal, Claudia I.

AbstractBackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient‐centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests.MethodsRAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2.ResultsFor 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid‐Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated “usually appropriate” or “rarely appropriate” and 45 of 148 (30%), “appropriateness uncertain.” Limitations: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded.ConclusionsAUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

Abstract Background Atypical cutaneous lymphoid infiltrates are challenging lesions in dermatopathology. We present a summary of the literature regarding kappa and lambda immunohistochemistry (IHC) and in situ hybridization (ISH) in the evaluation of atypical cutaneous or mucosal lymphoid infiltrates. Methods Relevant articles from 1967 to 2018 in the English language were identified and summarized. In the absence of larger studies, case series of n ≥ 3 were included. Results Sixty‐three articles assessing kappa and lambda IHC and/or ISH were identified. Most focused on marginal zone lymphomas. Other lymphomas included follicle center lymphoma, diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma, mantle cell lymphoma, lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, plasmablastic lymphoma, multiple myeloma, monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance, and polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal protein, skin changes (POEMS). Non‐neoplastic lesions included reactive lymphoid hyperplasia, cutaneous plasmacytosis, connective tissue disease, IgG4‐related disease, acrodermatitis chronic atrophicans, Zoon balanitis, dermatitides, and infiltrates around epithelial dysplasias/neoplasias. Conclusion Kappa and lambda IHC and ISH are useful tools in the evaluation of cutaneous B‐cell lymphomas and plasma cell neoplasms. The literature supports that the detection of light‐chain restriction by IHC and ISH is one of the most useful findings in the differential diagnosis of reactive lymphoid hyperplasia vs B‐cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation.

BackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide physicians guidance in test selection, and can affect health care delivery, reimbursement policy and physician decision‐making.ObjectivesThe American Society of Dermatopathology, with input from the American Academy of Dermatology and the College of American Pathologists, sought to develop AUC in dermatopathology.MethodsThe RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology, which combines evidence‐based medicine, clinical experience and expert judgment, was used to develop AUC in dermatopathology.ResultsWith the number of ratings predetermined at 3, AUC were developed for 211 clinical scenarios involving 12 ancillary studies. Consensus was reached for 188 (89%) clinical scenarios, with 93 (44%) considered “usually appropriate,” 52 (25%) “rarely appropriate” and 43 (20%) “uncertain appropriateness.”LimitationsThe methodology requires a focus on appropriateness without comparison between tests and irrespective of cost.ConclusionsThe ultimate decision of when to order specific test rests with the physician and is one where the expected benefit exceeds the negative consequences. This publication outlines the recommendations of appropriateness—AUC for 12 tests used in dermatopathology. Importantly, these recommendations may change considering new evidence. Results deemed “uncertain appropriateness” and where consensus was not reached may benefit from further research.

PEComas represent a family of uncommon mesenchymal tumors composed of “perivascular epithelioid cells” with a distinct immunophenotype that typically shows both myogenic and melanocytic differentiation. The PEComa family includes angiomyolipoma (AML), clear cell “sugar” tumor of the lung and extra pulmonary sites, lymphangioleiomyomatosis and clear cell myomelanocytic tumor of the falciform ligament/ligamentum teres. Very rarely, PEComas may arise in the skin. Primary cutaneous PEComas typically display a dermal proliferation of epithelioid cells with pale, clear, or granular pink cytoplasm arranged in nests and trabecula with an intervening arborizing network of delicate capillaries. Primary cutaneous PEComas have a lower frequency of myogenic marker expression than their deep soft tissue and visceral counterparts. They also often express strong diffuse CD10, leading to potential confusion with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Most cases behave indolently. We report 5 additional cases of this rare entity. All showed classic histologic features and expression of either HMB‐45 and/or Melan‐A/MART‐1. Four cases were tested for myogenic markers (2 were positive & 2 were negative). Three cases were tested for CD10 (all 3 were positive). All of our cases with clinical follow‐up behaved indolently. Table 1 provides a summary of findings for all 5 cases in our series.