This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stefan E. Epstein, MD
Rahway, NJ

JAMA. 1991;265(17):2192.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

I have reviewed the article by Stern et al¹ from the point of view of a practicing pathologist not in a university teaching center. Some of the assumptions and underlying premises of the study are worrisome.

First, in reviewing the list of clinical diagnoses that are considered correct, I feel rather strongly that senile wart, squamous papilloma, inverted follicular keratosis, and, especially, senile keratosis are inappropriate as clinical diagnoses for proven seborrheic keratoses. The problem with this spectrum of diagnoses that the authors consider "correct" is that those such as senile wart and senile keratosis are different from seborrheic keratosis, implying both different treatment and prognostic evaluation.

In reviewing my own files, it is clear that, if I exclude clinical diagnoses of "pigmented mole" and "basal cell epithelioma," virtually all of the clinical diagnoses submitted to me for skin tumors would be correct for seborrheic keratosis . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?