Abstract
BACKGROUNDS: The diagnosis of melanoma can be challenging, especially in lesions for which the histopathologic criteria bridge two or more taxonomic categories. Newer genomic analytical methods of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) have been introduced as ancillary techniques to differentiate benign and malignant melanocytic proliferations. METHODS: We evaluated how pathologists perceive and are incorporating these new cytogenetic testing technologies into their practices. We conducted a study of 207 U.S. pathologists who interpret melanocytic lesions in clinical practice in 10 SEER states. Pathologists were surveyed regarding perceptions and utilization of FISH and/or CGH in their clinical practices. RESULTS: Results showed that 38% of pathologists use FISH and/or CGH in interpreting melanocytic lesions. Pathologists reporting FISH and/or CGH use were significantly younger (p < 0.05), were fellowship trained or board certified in dermatopathology (p < 0.001) and were affiliated with an academic institute (p < 0.001). Pathologists reporting that their colleagues consider them an expert in the assessment of melanocytic lesions were more likely to employ FISH and/or CGH in their practices than non-experts. CONCLUSIONS: Early users of cytogenetic testing technologies in cutaneous pathology are more likely to be younger, affiliated with an academic institution and fellowship trained or board certified in dermatopathology.