Differential Diagnosis In Dermatopathology Research Articles

Blood Vessel Density in Basal Cell Carcinomas and Benign Trichogenic Tumors as a Marker for Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

In order to get insight into the density of blood vessels in the stroma of benign and malignant trichogenic neoplasms, immunohistological quantification of CD 31 positive vessels was performed in 112 tumors, comprised of 50 BCCs of nodular (35) or morphoeic (15) growth patterns, 17 Pinkus' tumors, as well as 17 trichoepitheliomas of which 6 were desmoplastic, 8 trichofolliculomas, and 20 trichoblastomas. Methods. Vessel density was counted within the tumors, in the tumor-surrounding stroma, and, as a control, in the normal skin of the operation specimen. The results were compared using statistical methods. Results. Whereas, irrespective of the patients' age and location of tumors, the vessel density in normal skin showed no significant differences (8.8 ± 2.7), the counts in the peritumoral stroma revealed significant differences between the different tumors investigated. The highest counts were obtained in BCC (24.7 ± 6.7) and the lowest in benign trichogenic neoplasms (around 14) Pinkus' tumors revealed intermediate counts (19.7 ± 6.6). The vessel densities within the tumors were generally low, and no correlation to the dignity was found. Conclusion. Determination of blood vessel density in the peritumoral stroma may be an additional parameter for differential diagnosis of trichogenic tumors of uncertain dignity.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II, 2nd Edition.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II, 2nd Edition.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II, 2nd Edition.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II, 2nd Edition.

Book review

Ackerman, BA, Guo, Y, Lazova, R, Kaddu, S . Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II , 2nd edn. New York, USA : Ardor Scribendi Publishers, 2001. Most physicians have little time or energy to expend on extraneous information. In keeping with the spirit of this notion, these authors have chosen to present challenging situations that practising dermatopathologists frequently encounter. Hence, the reader should have a basic foundation in dermatopathology in order to gain the most from this text. In this regard, the book is best used as an adjunct to one's library. Its design allows for quick reference to entities that pose confounding histological and/or clinical characteristics. Each chapter is dedicated to a single case involving two diseases with histological and/or clinical overlap. The layout of each chapter affords the reader an outline comparing and contrasting the two diseases. A discussion follows each outline, thereby providing information and explanations needed to understand the disease and the differential diagnosis. Particularly clever is the illustrative layout of Chapter 6. By using the mirror image of one disease to show the features of another, the text adroitly demonstrates acute discoid lupus erythematosus and subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus to be histologically indistinguishable. The illustrations are magnificent, utilizing high-resolution images to depict the slightest morphological change. There is also an extensive glossary of terms provided. Equally unique is the absence of an index or a table of contents. In this manner, the text parallels real-life experiences around the microscope. That is, it presents various disease processes with subtle histological or clinical differences. Thus, one could conceivably read this book leisurely, almost as a novel, identifying with the clues and pitfalls reminiscent of everyday sign-out. However, the statements and ideas are so powerful that, despite the pleasurableness of this book, they also serve as poignant anecdotes to be used in times of imminent crisis. I have been given a delightful opportunity to review Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II. I highly recommend it for those individuals searching for concise methods to differentiate diseases with overlapping features. I found it to be useful and am eager to read the other books in this series. Access to the completeset would be an invaluable asset to the edification of one's knowledge and could, potentially, serve as a life-saving reference when faced with difficult diagnostic situations.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II

HistopathologyVolume 40, Issue 4 p. 391-392 Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II D Slater, D SlaterSearch for more papers by this author D Slater, D SlaterSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 April 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.01379.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume40, Issue4April 2002Pages 391-392 RelatedInformation

BOOK REVIEW

Book review in this article: Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology IV. A. Bernard Ackerman.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology I

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology I

Book Review Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology I Second edition. By A. Bernard Ackerman, Ana Maria N. Mendonca, and Ying Guo. 199 pp., illustrated. Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1992. $139.50. 0-8121-1383-7

Book Review Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology I Second edition. By A. Bernard Ackerman, Ana Maria N. Mendonca, and Ying Guo. 199 pp., illustrated. Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1992. $139.50. 0-8121-1383-7

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential diagnosis in dermatopathology II.

Medical Journal of AustraliaVolume 152, Issue 8 p. 443-443 Bookcase Differential diagnosis in dermatopathology II. Amanda Gramp, Amanda GrampSearch for more papers by this author Amanda Gramp, Amanda GrampSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 April 1990 https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.1990.tb125283.xAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume152, Issue8April 1990Pages 443-443 RelatedInformation

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II. By A. Bernard Ackerman, James L. Troy, Leslie B. Rosen, Suthep Jerasutus, Clifton R. White, Jr., and D. Friday King. Philadelphia

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II. By A. Bernard Ackerman, James L. Troy, Leslie B. Rosen, Suthep Jerasutus, Clifton R. White, Jr., and D. Friday King. Philadelphia

Book Review: Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II

Book Review: Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology II

Computerized dermatopathologic diagnosis

A practical, transferable microcomputer system for differential diagnosis in dermatopathology, called TEGUMENT, has been developed for use by dermatologists on the standard IBM PC, Compaq, and other compatible personal microcomputers. In an interactive computer program a set of information is abstracted from the microscopic study of each specimen by a dermatologist, to compare with a structured knowledge base. The process leads through a relevant sequence of descriptive phrases until the findings can be allocated to a disease class. The microscopic description and diagnosis are then combined with clinical information by the computer and printed, optionally, as a pathology report. The identification and diagnosis of each case are preserved in permanent memory to enable future search and sorting. The results of independent validation are that a pathologist made the same diagnosis as the machine or a similar differential diagnosis in 91.8%, disagreed in 4.8%, and was unable to make a diagnosis from the description furnished by the machine in 3.4% of 147 actual cases. We conclude that a certain critical minimum of information is required for objective diagnosis; more information is needed for definitive than for differential diagnosis; a characteristic feature is necessary to distinguish between differential diagnoses; an objective description may admit of more than one diagnosis; ambiguity may be reduced by presenting for consideration all distinguishing features that characterize closely related diagnoses; and the personal microcomputer, programmed in this way, is of considerable assistance to the dermatologist in the histopathologic diagnosis of diseases and neoplasms of the skin.

The Value of S100 Protein Staining for Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

: The International Society of Dermatopathology: Abstracts of Papers Presented at the Seventh International Dermatopathology Colloquium, May 23–25, 1986, Graz, Austria: PDF Only

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology.

To the Editor.— In his recent review of our book entitled Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology , Larry E. Millikan, MD, wrote that some entries appear of dubious value because of the minimal likelihood of difficulty in clinical differentiation, eg, porokeratosis v eccrine poroma. I respond to correct an error by Dr Millikan. We did not contrast porokeratosis with eccrine poroma, but with inflammatory linear verrucous epidermal nevus. Differentiating the latter two conditions histologically is a challenge to pathologists, as are each of the 45 sets of diseases that we contrasted.

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

Differential Diagnosis in Dermatopathology

The newest publication by Dr Ackerman has many pluses and a few significant negatives. The biggest plus is the quality of printing, which provides excellent color rendition of representative microscopic sections. Such quality costs, as evidenced by the purchase price ($86) of this somewhat small text. Selection of material varies in its usefulness. Among the most useful topics covered are comparisons of the psoriasiform dermatoses and of microscopic aspects of the various alopecias (both scarring and nonscarring). The section on tumors (malignant and benign) is somewhat patchy and often reflects Ackerman's bias, which differs from other authors of dermatopathology texts. Some entries appear of dubious value because of the minimal likelihood of difficulty in clinical differentiation, eg, porokeratosis<i>v</i>eccrine poroma, arthropod bites<i>v</i>chronic urticaria, irritant<i>v</i>allergic contact dermatitis, and in most instances comparisons of erythema nodosum and nodular vasculitis. In many of these cases, biopsies are rare