How informative are dermatopathology requisition forms completed by dermatologists? A review of the clinical information provided for 100 consecutive melanocytic lesions

BackgroundAccurate clinicopathologic correlation can be crucial to arriving at the correct microscopic diagnosis.ObjectiveWe reviewed the clinical information provided on the dermatopathology requisition forms for melanocytic lesions submitted by community dermatologists.MethodsThe clinical information provided and the microscopic diagnoses rendered were recorded in a retrospective, unblinded fashion for 100 consecutive melanocytic lesions submitted as wet tissue to our dermatopathology department.ResultsBiopsy specimens were received from 60 community dermatologists and 5 nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Clinical morphology (ie, papule) was provided in 33% of cases. With respect to the ABCDE criteria, 55% of cases had none, 12% had one criterion, 21% had two criteria, 10% had 3 criteria, 2% had 4 criteria, and none had all 5 criteria. No forms stated whether the biopsy specimen was a partial or complete sampling of the lesion. Asymmetry was provided 4% of the time, border irregularity 8%, color 39%, diameter 22%, and evolution 10%. A family or personal history of melanoma was provided in 8% of cases. No requisition forms mentioned the “ugly duckling” sign. Dermatoscopy information and a clinical photograph were provided once each. In 19 cases, the only information on the requisition form was one of the phrases: “r/o atypia,” “r/o atypical nevus,” “r/o Clark's,” or “r/o dysplastic nevus.” In 10 cases, the only information was “r/o nevus.”LimitationsOnly 100 consecutive melanocytic lesions were studied in a retrospective, unblinded fashion.ConclusionImportant clinical information regarding pigmented lesions is often not provided on the requisition form. Potential reasons for this deficit and suggestions for improvement are discussed.