PRAME immunohistochemistry as an adjunct for diagnosis and histological margin assessment in lentigo maligna.

AIMS: Lentigo maligna (LM), the most common type of melanoma in situ, is a diagnostically challenging lesion for pathologists due to abundant background melanocytic hyperplasia in sun-damaged skin. Currently, no laboratory methods reliably distinguish benign from malignant melanocytes. However, preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) has shown promise in this regard, and could potentially be applied to diagnosis and margin assessment in difficult cases of LM. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ninety-six cases with a diagnosis of LM (n = 77) or no residual LM (n = 19) following initial biopsy were identified and stained with an antibody directed towards PRAME. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was scored as positive or negative, and measurement of histological margins by PRAME was performed and compared to the measurement of histological margins using conventional methods [haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and/or sex-determining region Y-box 10 (SOX10) and/or Melan-A]. Of cases with LM, 93.5% (72 of 77) were PRAME+ and 94.7% (18 of 19) of cases with no residual LM were PRAME- . Of the 35 cases with no margin involvement by PRAME or conventional assessment, 14 cases (40.0%) had no difference in measurement, 17 (48.6%) had a difference of 1 mm or less and four (11.4%) differed by between 1 and 3.5 mm. There was a high correlation between margin assessment methods (r = 0.97, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: PRAME IHC is a sensitive (93.5%) and specific (94.7%) method for diagnosing LM on biopsy and excision, and measurement of histological margins by PRAME shows a high correlation with conventional methods for margin assessment. Furthermore, the nuclear expression of PRAME makes it a good target for use in dual-colour IHC stains.

Medicolegal liability in pathology: an international perspective.

An inevitable outcome of modern Medicine in any country is that some patients will experience adverse events, some of which would have been preventable. Different nations have developed various approaches to such cases; their legal efficacies are probably dissimilar and dependent on a number of disparate variables. An international "snapshot" of the results of the interacting forces can be obtained by asking physicians in several countries how they view selected subjective facets of their tort systems. In the U.S., many physicians view the structure of malpractice torts as unfair, and that belief is shared by at least some pathologists. The American Medical Association has declared that a multiregional malpractice "crisis" exists which raises medical costs and threatens access to care. Furthermore, malpractice tort decisions are often flawed scientifically because lay jurors and judges cannot properly evaluate the quality of "expert" testimony given by adversarial witnesses. Despite these factors, there has been little effort to investigate the views of pathologists on malpractice actions outside the U.S. In this paper, the authors have collected the responses of an international group of pathologists to a questionnaire on that topic. The respondents practice in academic centers in 15 countries outside the U.S. As expected, a range of views was represented, with some pathologists reporting that malpractice litigation was uncommon and others noting a worrisome trend toward its growth. Interestingly, so-called "defensive medicine" was found to be relatively common in pathology in many countries.

Tort reform: the pathologists' perspective.

Physicians who become ensnarled in malpractice litigation often feel that the tort system has treated them unfairly. This negative perception has fueled physician efforts to enact "reforms" intended to mitigate the damage that allegations of medical negligence currently have on both individual physicians and on the practice of medicine itself. Although physicians are generally enthusiastic about "reform," there is currently no definition that allows tort "reform" to be separated from related initiatives. Some physicians largely restrict the term to defendant-friendly changes in the rules and procedures governing the workings of the tort system, whereas others take a somewhat broader view. In the present paper, we have favored the broader approach to the topic, leading to a discussion of 30 measures that have been presented in the context of tort "reform." Although most of these measures involve changes in the complex rules governing the malpractice tort system itself (eg, capping jury awarded damages), our broader view of "reform" also includes attempts to exert influence on the tort system from the outside (eg, peer review of expert testimony) and measures designed to keep patient dissatisfaction out of the tort system (eg, apology for error). Some would argue for an even broader view of tort "reform" that would including measures for reducing the pool of dissatisfied patients. For example, trial lawyers have claimed that physicians have put far too much effort into "reforms" that reduce the legal consequences of committing medical errors, and not enough effort into "reforms" that would reduce the errors themselves. The latter point may or may not have some validity, but there is a natural demarcation between measures designed to align medical outcomes with patient expectations (eg, error reduction, better diagnostic technology) and others designed to improve the processes that resolve patient dissatisfaction. Only the latter meet our definition of tort "reform."

Mesothelioma in patients with nonoccupational asbestos exposure. An evidence-based approach to causation assessment.

The specific parameters of nonoccupational asbestos exposures (NOAE) that can distinguish an idiopathic from an asbestos-caused malignant mesothelioma (MM) are controversial. A systematic literature review yielded 1028 cases with this putative association. Only 287 of those reports had a defined single exposure to a household, building occupant, or neighborhood/community asbestos source. The available "evidence" was used to develop semiarbitrary evidence-based causation guideline rules for the assessment of putative associations between MM and NOAE. The rules are classified into class A (tissue burden analysis shows asbestos body counts or fiber counts in lung tissues comparable to MM caused by occupational exposure to asbestos) and classes B to D based on whether certain combinations of NOAE features and MM (evidence) have been described in over 15% (class B), 5% to 15% (class C), and less than 5% (class D) of the patients reviewed. The proposed 4 classes of evidence-based causation guidelines provide a semiarbitrary framework to evaluate the causation of individual MM patients by NOAE based on decreasing levels of currently available evidence. The neoplasms in classes A to C patients are probably caused by NOAE, with decreasing weight of evidence in the 3 groups. There is minimal evidence to support the causation of MM by NOAE in class D patients. There is no evidence or only anecdotal evidence to support a causal association between MM and NOAE in individuals who cannot be classified into any of the 4 classes. Future studies are needed to provide more comprehensive data regarding the association between MM and NOAE.

Evidence-based medicine, medical decision analysis, and pathology.

Recent advances in molecular pathology and other technologies such as proteomics present pathologists with the challenge of integrating the new information generated with high-throughput methods with current diagnostic models based mostly on histopathology and clinicopathologic correlations. Parallel developments in the field of medical informatics and bioinformatics provide the technical and mathematical methods to approach these problems in a rational manner. However, it remains unclear whether pathologists or other medical specialists will become primarily responsible for the development and maintenance of these multivariate and multidisciplinary diagnostic and prognostic models that are hoped to provide more accurate, individualized patient-based information. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and medical decision analysis (MDA) are relatively new disciplines that use quantitative methods to assess the value of information, differentiate fact from myth, and integrate so-called best evidence into multivariate models for the assessment of prognosis, response to therapy, selection of laboratory tests, and other complex problems that influence individual patient care. We review from an epistemological viewpoint the current approach to information in pathology and describe some of the concepts developed by the practitioners of EBM and MDA.