Ethical dilemma in missed melanoma: What to tell the patient and other providers.

Alan M. Menter M.D.
Vangipuram, R., M. E. Horner and A. Menter (2017). “Ethical dilemma in missed melanoma: What to tell the patient and other providers.” J Am Acad Dermatol 76(2): 365-367.
Case scenario A 77-year-old man presented to his podiatrist for evaluation of a dystrophic left great toenail. A nail avulsion procedure was performed with debridement. At 6-month follow-up the patient had a persistent nonhealing lesion, resulting in a biopsy being performed by the podiatrist. Histopathological analysis revealed a “nodular lymphohistiocytic infiltrate without a neoplastic process.” The podiatrist reassured the patient that the lesion was not worrisome and continued regular debridements over the ensuing 15 months. Because of lack of improvement, the podiatrist then referred the patient to a dermatologist for further evaluation. At that time, the lesion demonstrated pigmentation extending focally to the cuticle (Hutchinson sign) with a nodular growth pattern. Repeated biopsy specimen reported “malignant melanoma with 2.4-mm Breslow depth.” Treatment included great toe amputation and sentinel lymph node biopsy, which indicated metastasis with micronodular involvement. Upon further histologic review of the original biopsy specimen taken 2 years prior, malignant melanoma was noted to be present to a depth of 2.2 mm.