4.1 Article

Utilization and Utility of Immunohistochemistry in Dermatopathology

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DERMATOPATHOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 1, Pages 74-77

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/DAD.0b013e31825d4f73

Keywords

dermatopathology; immunohistochemistry; utilization; utility

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is considered a valuable ancillary tool for dermatopathology diagnosis, but few studies have measured IHC utilization by dermatopathologists or assessed its diagnostic utility. In a regionalized, community-based dermatopathology practice, we measured IHC utilization (total requests, specific antibodies requested, and final diagnosis) over a 12-month period. Next, we assessed diagnostic utility by comparing a preliminary pre-IHC diagnosis based on routine histochemical staining with the final diagnosis rendered after consideration of IHC results. The dermatopathology IHC utilization rate was 1.2%, averaging 3.6 stains requested per case. Melanocytic, hematolymphoid, and fibrohistiocytic lesions made up 23%, 18%, and 16%, respectively, of the total cases requiring IHC. S100 and Melan A were the most frequently requested stains, ordered on 50% and 34% of IHC cases, respectively. The utility study revealed that IHC changed the diagnosis in 11%, confirmed a diagnosis, or excluded a differential diagnosis in 77%, and was noncontributory in 4% of cases. Where IHC results prompted a change in diagnosis, 14% were a change from a benign to malignant lesion, whereas 32% changed from one malignant entity to another. IHC is most commonly used in cutaneous melanocytic and hematolymphoid lesions. In 11% of dermatopathology cases in which IHC is used, information is provided that changes the H&E diagnosis. Such changes may have significant treatment implications. IHC is noncontributory in only a small percentage of cases.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available