Letter to the Editor regarding: “Pre- and post-analytical guidelines for the microscopic diagnosis of melanoma: recommendations from the Brazilian Society of Pathology” - ReplyDear Editor,
We read with great interest the letter from Dr. Cunha regarding our recently published guideline.1 Both the College of American Pathologists2 and the NCCN3 strongly discourage the use of frozen sections for most melanocytic lesions when standard clinical margins can be achieved without significant limitations. They emphasize that accurate melanoma diagnosis continues to rely on Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) sections from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue, supplemented, when appropriate, by immunohistochemistry,2-4 since melanoma represents a heterogeneous group of tumors with multiple histologic subtypes and distinct biological behaviors.4
The recommended peripheral surgical margins and methods for their assessment in head and neck melanoma and lentigo maligna remain subjects of considerable debate. This uncertainty largely reflects the lack of consistent, well-designed prospective studies addressing the management of these challenging lesions. A recent critical review identified a very high risk of bias (97.9%) among studies evaluating Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS) for melanoma.5
Although robust validation for the use of MMS in melanocytic lesions is still lacking, recent advances in this field deserve recognition. According to the latest NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma, MMS ‒ or other techniques that enable comprehensive margin assessment ‒ may provide equivalent or even superior local control for certain pT1a melanomas in selected sites, particularly on the face, ears, and acral areas.3 It is essential, however, that potential candidates be carefully selected and thoroughly counseled. The successful use of these techniques, which apply only to a small subset of melanoma patients, requires a well-trained and experienced multidisciplinary team. It is important to highlight that, considering melanomas arising in skin with extensive cumulative sun damage, histopathologic interpretation can be especially challenging. This difficulty arises from actinic melanocytic alterations and ill-defined tumor margins with “skip” areas4 ‒ factors that may be further compounded by technically suboptimal slides.
Finally, as also acknowledged by the NCCN,3 no prospective comparative studies have yet evaluated the different excision methods for melanoma. This gap leaves the topic open for continued scientific discussion. Future prospective, independent, and well-designed studies are needed to clarify the potential role of MMS and other surgical techniques in the management of melanocytic lesions.
Research data availability
Does not apply.
References
- 1 Xavier-Júnior JCC, Coelho KMPA, Macedo MP, Lellis RF, Pinheiro Junior NF, Rocha RF; Dermatopathology Committee of the Brazilian Society of Pathology. Pre-and post-analytical guidelines for the microscopic diagnosis of melanoma: recommendations from the brazilian society of pathology. An Bras Dermatol. 2025;100:501139.
- 2 College of American Pathologists. Protocol for the Examination of Excision Specimens from Patients with Invasive Melanoma of the Skin. Version 1.2.0.0. 2025.
- 3 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®). Melanoma: cutaneous. Version 2.2025; 2025.
- 4 WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. Skin Tumours. 5th ed. Lyon (France): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2025.
- 5 Adalsteinsson JA, Stoj VJ, Algzlan H, Swede H, Torbeck RL, Ratner D. Limitations in the literature regarding mohs surgery and staged excision for melanoma: a critical review of quality and data reporting. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:404-13.
Edited by
-
Editor
Sílvio Alencar Marques.
