The diagnostic concordance of actinic keratosis and squamous cell carcinoma

Journal of Cutaneous Pathology

Volumn 32, Issue 8, 2005, Pages 546-551

  Davis, Daniel A ^a,c   Donahue, John P ^b   Bost, James E ^c   Horn, Thomas D ^a  

^a CENTRAL ARKANSAS VETERANS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^b University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences ^*

^c UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACTINIC KERATOSIS; CELL DIFFERENTIATION; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EPIDERMIS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; REVIEW; SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA; THICKNESS; TISSUE SECTION; UNITED STATES;

CARCINOMA IN SITU; CARCINOMA, SQUAMOUS CELL; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HUMANS; KERATOSIS; PHOTOSENSITIVITY DISORDERS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SKIN; SKIN NEOPLASMS;

EID: 24044460089     PISSN: 03036987     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0303-6987.2005.00381.x     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Cockerell CJ. Pathology and pathobiology of the actinic (solar) keratosis. Br J Dermatol 2003; 149: 34.
2. Ackerman AB. Opposing views of 2 academies about the nature of solar keratosis. Cutis 2003; 71: 391.
3. Khanna M, Fortier-Riberdy G, Dinehart SM, Smoller B. Histopathologic evaluation of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: results of a survey among dermatopathologists. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003; 48: 721.
4. Dinehart SM, Nelson-Adesokan P, Cockerell C, Russell S, Brown R. Metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma derived from actinic keratosis. Cancer 1997; 79: 920.
5. Dodson JM, DeSpain J, Hewett JE, Clark DP. Malignant potential of actinic keratoses and the controversy over treatment. A patient-oriented perspective. Arch Dermatol, 1991; 127: 1029.
6. Fukamizu H, Inoue K, Matsumoto K, Okayama H, Moriguchi T. Metastatic squamous-cell carcinomas derived from solar keratosis. J Dermatol Surg Oncol 1985; 11: 518.
7. Pinkus H. Keratosis senilis: a biologic concept of its pathogenesis and diagnosis based on the study of normal epidermis and 1730 seborrheic and senile keratoses. Am J Clin Pathol 1958; 29: 193.
8. Montgomery H, Dorffel J. Verruca senilis und Keratoma senile. Arch Dermatol Syphilol 1939; 39: 287.
9. Freudenthal W. Verruca senilis und Keratoma senile. Arch Dermatol Syphilol (Berlin) 1926; 158: 539.
10. Dubreuilh WA. Des hyperkeratosis circonscrites. Ann Dermatol Venereol 1896; 27: 1158.
11. Weedon D. Skin Pathology, New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997.
12. Zbar AP, Fenger C, Efron J, Beer-Gabel M, Wexner SD. The pathology and molecular biology of anal intraepithelial neoplasia: comparisons with cervical and vulvar intraepithelial carcinoma. Int J Colorectal Dis 2002; 17: 203.
13. Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N. The female genital tract. In: Kumar V, Abbas AK, Fausto N, eds. Robbins and Cotran. Pathologic Basis of Disease. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders 2005.
14. Retrieved from http://pathology.jhu.edu/pancreas_panin/.
15. Bostwick DG. Prospective origins of prostate carcinoma. Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and atypical adenomatous hyperplasia. Cancer 1996; 78: 330.
16. Retrieved from http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cancernet.
17. Ackerman AB. Solar keratosis is squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139: 1216.
18. Fu W, Cockerell CJ. The actinic (solar) keratosis: a 21st-century perspective. Arch Dermatol 2003; 139: 66.
19. Lober BA, Lober CW, Accola J. Actinic keratosis is squamous cell carcinoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 43: 881.
20. Evans C, Cockerell CJ. Actinic keratosis: time to call a spade a spade. South Med J 2000; 93: 734.
21. Hurwitz RM, Monger LE. Solar keratosis: an evolving squamous cell carcinoma. Benign or malignant? Dermatol Surg 1995; 21: 184.
22. Jones RE. Questions to the editorial board and other authorities. What is the boundary that separates a thick actinic keratosis from a thin squamous-cell carcinoma? Am J Dermatopathol 1984; 6: 301.
23. Heaphy MR Jr, Ackerman AB. The nature of solar keratosis: a critical review in historical perspective. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 43: 138.
24. Cockerell CJ. Histopathology of incipient intraepidermal squamous cell carcinoma ('actinic keratosis'). J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42: 11.
25. Yantsos VA, Conrad N, Zabawski E, Cockerell CJ. Incipient intraepidermal cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a proposal for reclassifying and grading solar (actinic) keratoses. Sem Cutan Med Surg 1999; 18: 3.
26. Person JR. An actinic keratosis is neither malignant nor premalignant: it is an initiated tumor. J Am Acad Dermatol 2003; 48: 637.
27. Ortonne JP. From actinic keratosis to squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol 2002; 146: 20.
28. Scholten AN, Smit VT, Beerman H, van Putten WL, Creutzberg CL. Prognostic significance and interobserver variability of histologic grading systems for endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100: 764.
29. Price GJ, McCluggage WG, Morrison MML, et al. Computerized diagnostic decision support system for the classification of preinvasive cervical squamous lesions. Hum Pathol 2004; 34: 1193.
30. Simsir A, Hwang S, Cangiarella J, et al. Glandular cell atypia on Papanicolaou smears: interobserver variability in the diagnosis and prediction of cell of origin. Cancer 2003; 99: 323.
31. Ormsby AH, Petras RE, Henricks WH, et al. Observer variation in the diagnosis of superficial oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Gut 2002; 51: 671.
32. Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, Appleton MA, et al. Consistency in the observation of features used to classify duct carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. J Clin Pathol 2000; 53: 596.
33. de Vet HC, Koudstaal J, Kwee WS, Willebrand D, Arends JW. Efforts to improve interobserver agreement in histopathological grading. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 869.
34. McLaren KM, Burnett RA, Goodlad JR, et al. Scottish Pathology Consistency Group. Consistency of histopathological reporting of laryngeal dysplasia. The Scottish Pathol Consistency Group. Histopathology 2000; 37: 460.
35. McCluggage WG, Walsh MY, Thornton CM, et al. Inter-and intra-observer variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions using a modified Bethesda grading system. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 206.
36. Sherman ME, Paull G. Vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia. Reproducibility of pathologic diagnosis and correlation of smears and biopsies. Acta Cytologica 1993; 37: 699.
37. Preti M, Mezzetti M, Robertson C, Sideri M. Inter-observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: results of an European collaborative study. BJOG 2000; 107: 594.
38. Epstein JI, Grignon DJ, Humphrey PA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Am J Surg Pathol 1995; 19: 873.
39. Wells WA, Carney PA, Eliassen MS, Grove MR, Tosteson AN. Pathologists' agreement with experts and reproducibility of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ classification schemes. Am J Surg Pathol 2000; 24: 651.
40. Tsuda H, Akiyama F, Kurosumi M, Sakamoto G, Watanabe T. The efficacy and limitations of repeated slide conferences for improving interobserver agreement when judging nuclear atypia of breast cancer. The Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS-BC) Pathology Section. Japan J Clin Oncol 1999; 29: 68.