"Atypical" blue nevus, "malignant" blue nevus, and "metastasizing" blue nevus: a critique in historical perspective of three concepts flawed fatally.

Abstract

The same errors that spawned, sustained, and continue to spur the notions of "atypical" Spitz's nevus, "malignant" Spitz's nevus, and "metastasizing" Spitz's nevus are animating of 3 other concepts flawed equally, namely, those of "atypical blue nevus," "malignant blue nevus," and "metastasizing blue nevus." Our intention here is to compel to the conclusion, by way of critique in historical perspective, that all neoplasms claimed to be "malignant blue nevus" and "metastasizing blue nevus;" in fact, are melanomas, that all "atypical blue nevi" are either a nevus or a melanoma, and that the trio of curious designations that serve as title of this work are mere evasions transparently from a diagnosis, straightforwardly, of 1 of only 3 possibilities, to wit, "blue nevus," melanoma, or melanoma in association with a "blue nevus." Rather than admit uncertainty forthrightly, those who employ circumlocutions that we deplore, such as those under scrutiny here, resort to linguistic maneuvers that, at first blush, seem to have the cachet of scholarship (the jargon used being in keeping with a slew of other well-accepted, but equally bogus diagnoses in [dermato]pathology, among those being "minimal deviation melanoma," "borderline melanoma," "nevoid melanoma," "potentially low-grade melanocytic neoplasm," and "melanocytic proliferation of uncertain biologic potential"). All those terms and phrases are constructed in a manner designed to make them appear to convey unbridled confidence on the part of a histopathologist, rather than what they are in actuality, that is, a cover abjectly for tentativeness. Scrutiny of the lingo, in very abbreviated form, just catalogued reveals it to be devoid of content utterly. For example, "malignant blue nevus" and "metastasizing blue nevus" not only are contradictions in terms, but they are outrageous violations of principles fundamental to classic Virchowian pathology. We seek here to debunk that claptrap in the same manner we did "atypical Spitz's nevus," "malignant Spitz's nevus," and "metastasizing Spitz's nevus." It is our hope that readers will consider our arguments worthy because they are logical, will find them convincing because they are irrefutable, and will incorporate the lessons communicated through them so that their own professional life, pathology as a discipline, and, ultimately, patients, are the beneficiaries.