4.6 Article

Concordance of in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy and horizontal-sectioning histology in skin tumours

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.19491

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to evaluate the concordance between in vivo RCM and histopathological transverse sections, and the results show significant agreement between the two, reinforcing the utility of RCM as a diagnostic tool.
BackgroundIn vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) enables the study of architectural and cytological aspects in horizontal sections, which closely correlate with histologic features. However, traditional histopathological vertical sections cannot totally reproduce the image of the in vivo RCM horizontal section.ObjectiveTo evaluate the concordance between in vivo RCM and histopathologic transverse sections for melanocytic lesions, basal cell carcinoma and seborrheic keratoses.MethodsProspectively collected benign melanocytic and non-melanocytic tumours diagnosed by dermoscopy were evaluated for common RCM features and compared to histopathology in horizontal sections with haematoxylin and eosin staining.ResultsA total of 44 skin tumours including 19 melanocytic lesions (nine compound, five junctional and five intradermal nevi), 12 basal cell carcinomas and 13 seborrheic keratoses were collected in the Department of Dermatology of Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. The RCM features that had statistically significant agreement with the histopathological horizontal sections were the preserved and visible honeycomb pattern, well defined DEJ, small bright particles, dermal nests, tumour islands and dark silhouettes, clefting, collagen bundles, thickened collagen bundles and cytologic atypia.ConclusionsHistopathology evaluation of horizontal sections of skin tumours can be correlated with main RCM findings. The results of this study have improved the understanding and interpretation of RCM features in relation to skin tumours, thus reinforcing the utility of RCM as a diagnostic tool.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据