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 this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

LOUIS H. WINER, M.D.

Arch Derm Syphilol. 1940;42(5):856-867.

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

Pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia in chronic inflammation has long been difficult to diagnose. Competent pathologists have occasionally been surprised by the spontaneous healing of a lesion which they had diagnosed squamous cell carcinoma microscopically. The result is that some pathologists have taken the stand that a lesion of this type is a carcinoma only if it is not a specimen from an ulcer on the leg or if it is not associated with chronic granuloma.

In order that the difference between pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia and true epithelioma can be appreciated, one must consider the diagnostic characteristics of each.

Borrmann¹ wrote that in early epithelioma of the skin there is a definite transformation of the cutis, which is correlated with and even precedes the invasion by the acanthotic epidermis. Therefore, the changes in the cutis may not be considered a result of epithelial hyperplasia. Ribbert² thought the downward growth of epithelium and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
MINNEAPOLIS

From the Department of Dermatology and Syphilology, University of Minnesota, Dr. H. E. Michelson, Director, and the Department of Dermatology and Syphilology, Minneapolis General Hospital, Dr. S. E. Sweitzer, Chief.

Footnotes
Read before the Section on Dermatology at the Twentieth Annual Session of the American Medical Association, New York, June 13, 1940.

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