Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Frozen section (FS) is often performed when histopathological evaluations are urgently required for implementation of therapeutic measures. In dermatology, this method is most commonly used to evaluate excision margins of tumors. FS are also routinely employed to differentiate toxic epidermal necrolysis from staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. However, little is currently known about the performance of FS in the diagnosis of inflammatory dermatoses.

Objectives: To compare histopathological diagnoses in a series of patients with a clinical diagnosis of an inflammatory dermatosis for which FS and paraffin-section (PS) specimens were obtained on the same day.

Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis of 43 cases. All histological slides were reviewed by a single dermato-pathologist. Concordance was calculated between FS and PS.

Results: Patients were divided into three groups according to diagnosis: papulosquamous diseases (group I), drug eruptions (group II), and a heterogeneous group (group III) that included cases of bullous vasculitis and Sweet syndrome. Among the three groups, the results of FS and of PS were discordant only in five cases (5/43, 11.6%). Compared to PS, FS had a sensitivity of 92.9% [95% confidence interval (95%CI) 64.17–99.63%] and a specificity of 100% in group I, sensitivity of 90.9% (95%CI 57.12–99.52%) and specificity of 100% in group II, and sensitivity of 83.33% (95%CI 60.78–94.16%) and specificity of 100% in group III. The degree of agreement between the results of the FS and of the PS was almost perfect (kappa = 0.95, 0.93 and 0.85 respectively).

Conclusions: This study suggests that FS is a valid approach for the rapid diagnosis of inflammatory dermatoses. This method is as specific as PS, although it is less sensitive.

Background: The imaging parameters that mandate further diagnostic workup in focal asymmetric breast densities are not clearly defined.

Objectives: To identify indications for further workup in FABD[1] by comparing mammographic and ultrasonographic findings with the pathology results of women with FABD.

Methods: Ninety-four women (97 FABD) were referred for core needle biopsy after incidental discovery of FABD on routine mammograms (n=83) or on diagnostic mammograms performed for palpable masses (n=11). Clinical data included patient’s age, use of hormone replacement therapy, family history of breast cancer, and the presence of a palpable mass. Mammograms and sonograms were evaluated for lesion size and location, associated calcifications, architectural distortion, and change from previous examinations when available. Two patient groups emerged according to the pathological findings and the data were compared.

Results: The average age, size and location of the lesions in the malignant (n=5) and benign (n=92) groups were similar. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) for the presence of a clinically palpable mass (60% vs. 9%, respectively), a cluster of calcifications (60% vs. 12%), associated architectural distortion (exclusively in the malignant group) and a solid mass on sonography (50% vs. 9%). The malignant group had a higher rate of family history of breast cancer and HRT[2] use.

Conclusions: FABD usually present a benign etiology and can safely be managed by follow‑up. The presence of an architectural distortion, a cluster of malignant‑appearing or indeterminate calcifications, a sonographic mass with features of possible malignancy, or a clinically palpable mass mandates tissue diagnosis.