CASE OF THE WHENEVER #24, PART THREE (general remarks)
The recognition of a lesion, person, or other object by visual means involves the integration of the present image with a mental storehouse of visually derived information.  The verbal or written expression of the reasons (criteria) for the recognition is elusive and, at best, incomplete. For instance; if I were to describe my brother to you in extensive and accurate detail, you probably would not be able to pick him out of a crowd of adult, Caucasian males of similar age. If,  however, you had met him on several occasions, you would have no difficulty recognizing him.

In spite of the shortcomings of expressed criteria for diagnoses, they do provide an adjunct for teaching pathology. The danger lies in relying on such criteria, particularly a single criterion, in making a diagnosis. Pundits who are quite capable of correctly diagnosing a difficult case often state that they have done so by utilizing a few pet criteria. That this has involved a more complex, though subconscious, process has not been appreciated. This becomes harmful when a resident with insufficient visual experience attempts to diagnose a complex case based upon one or two such criteria. This can be a serious problem with melanocytic lesions in that there is probably not a single criterion, taken in isolation, that allows one to distinguish between an benign and a malignant lesion.

A diagnosis or a narrow differential diagnosis occurs almost immediately to an experienced dermatopathologist when first confronted with a slide. Subsequent manipulation and examination of the slide is for confirmatory purposes when the diagnosis is apparent, or  sequential fields that satisfy a subconscious algorithm are examined  when there is a differential diagnosis to ponder. At this point he/she either knows the diagnosis or, hopefully, is aware that he/she does not. It is also at this point that he/she dictates observations or statements that support the diagnosis.
 

The images in Part One could have been picked by someone who sought supporting criteria after making a benign diagnosis, possibly spindle cell nevus (Spitz), .  Let us examine some of the 'benign' criteria that one could invoke in this case. This examination is not to denigrate these criteria but to put them into perspective.



Click on your browser's 'Back' button to return to PART TWO.
or
Click on PART ONE to return to that page.
or
Click on HOME to go there.