Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2023
PRAME immunohistochemistry can distinguish melanocytic pseudonests of lichenoid reactions from melanoma in situ.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Roy Simon F, Panse Gauri, McNiff Jennifer M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Distinguishing melanocytic pseudonests encountered in lichenoid dermatoses or lichenoid keratoses from melanoma in situ (MIS) with brisk lichenoid inflammation can prove challenging.
METHODS: We designed a case-control study to evaluate the accuracy metrics of PRAME immunohistochemistry to distinguish melanocytic pseudonests in lichenoid dermatoses or keratoses from inflamed MIS. Immunostaining for PRAME was performed on paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed diagnostic tissue using a rabbit monoclonal antibody to PRAME (Abcam), with a 1:3200 dilution on a Leica Bond detection system.
RESULTS: Our search identified 21 cases of melanocytic pseudonests (n = 21, 46%) encountered in lichenoid dermatoses and 24 cases of inflamed MIS (n = 24, 53%). Each method of evaluating PRAME immunohistochemistry (PRAME+ clusters, PRAME % of melanocytes by four categories and PRAME+ melanocyte counts per linear mm of epidermal basal layer) showed statistically significant differences between the MIS and the pseudonest cohorts (respectively, p < 0.001; p < 0.001; and p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics analysis for PRAME+ melanocyte counts per linear mm of epidermal basal layer revealed an area under the curve of 0.9 ± 0.05 (95% confidence interval 0.9-1.0). When determining an optimal cut-off point for the best Youden index [sensitivity (%) + specificity (%) - 100], the cut-off of 1.0 PRAME+ melanocytes per linear mm showed a sensitivity of 79.2% and specificity of 85.7% (Youden index 0.65) to distinguish MIS from pseudonests.
CONCLUSION: PRAME immunohistochemistry may constitute an additional tool for this challenging differential diagnosis.
METHODS: We designed a case-control study to evaluate the accuracy metrics of PRAME immunohistochemistry to distinguish melanocytic pseudonests in lichenoid dermatoses or keratoses from inflamed MIS. Immunostaining for PRAME was performed on paraffin-embedded formalin-fixed diagnostic tissue using a rabbit monoclonal antibody to PRAME (Abcam), with a 1:3200 dilution on a Leica Bond detection system.
RESULTS: Our search identified 21 cases of melanocytic pseudonests (n = 21, 46%) encountered in lichenoid dermatoses and 24 cases of inflamed MIS (n = 24, 53%). Each method of evaluating PRAME immunohistochemistry (PRAME+ clusters, PRAME % of melanocytes by four categories and PRAME+ melanocyte counts per linear mm of epidermal basal layer) showed statistically significant differences between the MIS and the pseudonest cohorts (respectively, p < 0.001; p < 0.001; and p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristics analysis for PRAME+ melanocyte counts per linear mm of epidermal basal layer revealed an area under the curve of 0.9 ± 0.05 (95% confidence interval 0.9-1.0). When determining an optimal cut-off point for the best Youden index [sensitivity (%) + specificity (%) - 100], the cut-off of 1.0 PRAME+ melanocytes per linear mm showed a sensitivity of 79.2% and specificity of 85.7% (Youden index 0.65) to distinguish MIS from pseudonests.
CONCLUSION: PRAME immunohistochemistry may constitute an additional tool for this challenging differential diagnosis.