What is the gold standard for being able to detect pseudopods? Pseudopods can indicate precancerous problems. What if the histological sectioning of a specimen misses the presence of pseudopods?
One gets training and experience by reading texts, going to courses. At the MSK cancer institute the 2nd lecture given in a 2 day intensive lecture series on intermediate dermoscopy lectures contained the following information given by Ralph Braun MD from the Dept of Dermatology in Switzerland:
Pseudo-pods were shown as histologic findings on a histology slide. One of the 2 dermoscopy texts I am curently reading show pseudo-pods on a slide.
Most dermatopathologists do not mention about the presence of pseudopods because the pathology labs either do not have access to dermatoscopic images and or they do not use such images in sectioning such specimens.
If a pathology lab actually used such dermatopathologic images and sectioned them propperly and found irregularly distributed pseudo-pods this just might save lives. Dermoscopy just might save lives.
Even if a podiatrist does not understand the full interpretation of dermatoscopic images if a pathology lab sending a dermatoscopic image on an encrypted disk where the dermatopathologist knows the password would allow the dermatopathologist to better interpret such findings.
A pseudopod a histological finding when a specimen is sent with a dermatoscopic image is only one example of this situation as to why pathology labs should encourage podiatrists to use dermatoscopes.
The argument may be made that it is a podiatrists responsibility to interpret a dermatoscopic image properly. Perhaps a similar argument may be made that if a pathology lab receive a dermatoscopic image the dermatopathologist has the responsibility to “properly” section the specimen so as to properly report a picture of the histological finding of a pseudopod.
As far as students disagreeing with their professors, why not also consider disagreeing with your dermatopathologist by going to dermatopathological textbooks and considering the accuracy of a report given by a dermatopathologist. I learned at the intermediate lecture series at MSK to question a pathologist report and to not always accept the report if one does not understand the histological structures.
One detailed dermatopathologic textbook I bought was the third edition of Dermatopathology edited by Raymond Barnhill.
1. Dermoscopy is a huge topic and contains a lot of volume.
2. There are several issues that are mixed into this subject matter.
3. Foreign verbiage is needed anytime a new topic is brought up.
4. Even if pseudopods are not a cellular level parameter, their distribution as seen on a dermatoscopic image contributes valuable additional information. This better enables the dermatopathologist to make a more accurate diagnosis.
5. If a podiatrist is not experienced at interpreting strutures, they still may be performing biopsies of dermatologic lesions. Once a decision is made to biopsy, this is an opportunity for even inexperienced podiatrists to send dermatoscopic pictures to an experienced dermatopathologist with the biopsy specimens. Such additional information can ultimately lead to a more accurate dermatopathology report.