The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2017
The management of dysplastic naevi: a survey of Australian dermatologists.
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.
Wall Nerilee, De'Ambrosis Brian, Muir Jim
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The management of dysplastic naevi based on histopathological grading is a contentious issue. Comprehensive management guidelines are lacking and the approach taken varies between clinicians. The authors sought to understand how Australian dermatologists approach the management of biopsy-proven dysplastic naevi, and the impact of grading of dysplasia upon this management.
METHODS: In total, 547 Fellows of the Australasian College of Dermatologists were surveyed and 218 responses were collected (40% response rate).
RESULTS: Although all dermatologists surveyed would re-excise an incompletely removed severely dysplastic naevus, opinion was divided over whether to treat such a lesion as an in situ melanoma or a dysplastic naevus, with 55% of respondents using a 5-mm margin and the remainder opting for narrow margin re-excision. When the same lesion was reported to be clear of margins by 1 mm after biopsy and the clinical suspicion for melanoma was high, 44% would re-excise with a 5-mm margin.
CONCLUSIONS: The approach of Australian dermatologists to the management of dysplastic naevi varies between clinicians, reflecting the problems raised by the validity of histopathological grading.
METHODS: In total, 547 Fellows of the Australasian College of Dermatologists were surveyed and 218 responses were collected (40% response rate).
RESULTS: Although all dermatologists surveyed would re-excise an incompletely removed severely dysplastic naevus, opinion was divided over whether to treat such a lesion as an in situ melanoma or a dysplastic naevus, with 55% of respondents using a 5-mm margin and the remainder opting for narrow margin re-excision. When the same lesion was reported to be clear of margins by 1 mm after biopsy and the clinical suspicion for melanoma was high, 44% would re-excise with a 5-mm margin.
CONCLUSIONS: The approach of Australian dermatologists to the management of dysplastic naevi varies between clinicians, reflecting the problems raised by the validity of histopathological grading.