Comparative analysis of protocols for morphological examination of the skin

Background. Histopathological examination of cutaneous melanoma is crucial for diagnosis, staging, and prognostic assessment. Despite the existence of international standards, the structure and scope of pathology reporting protocols vary across countries.

Aim. To compare the structure and degree of commonality among major international and national protocols for melanoma pathology reporting

Materials and methods. A comparative analysis was performed for the latest versions of the ICCR, CAP, RCPath, RCPA, and INCa datasets. Each protocol was assessed for mandatory and optional parameters across 12 key diagnostic item.

Results. All protocols include essential parameters determining tumor stage: Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitotic rate, lymphovascular and perineural invasion, margin status. The number of required elements varies from 6 in the French INCa protocol to 16 in the RCPath and RCPA protocols. The highest degree of harmonization is observed among the Australian, New Zealand, and UK datasets developed under the common ICCR framework..

Conclusion. International efforts are moving toward the unification of melanoma pathology reporting. Establishing a core list of mandatory parameters improves reproducibility, facilitates data comparability, and provides a foundation for developing a national unified protocol in Russia.

1. Garbe C., Peris K., Hauschild A. et al.; European Association of Dermato-Oncology (EADO), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). European consensus-based interdisciplinary guideline for melanoma. Part 1: Diagnostics — update 2024. Eur J Cancer 2025;215:115152. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2024.115152

2. Clark W.H. Jr, From L., Bernardino E.A., Mihm M.C. Jr. The histogenesis and biologic behavior of primary human malignant melanomas of the skin. Cancer Res 1969;29(3):705—27.

3. Breslow A. Thickness, cross-sectional areas and depth of invasion in the prognosis of cutaneous melanoma. Ann Surg 1970;172(5):902—8. DOI: 10.1097/00000658-197011000-00017

4. Sobin L.H., Hermanek P., Hutter R.V.P. TNM classification of malignant tumors. A comparison between the new (1987) and the old editions. Cancer 1988;61(11):2310—4. DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(19880601)61:11<2310::AID-CNCR2820611127>3.0.CO;2-X

5. Balch C.M., Gershenwald J.E., Soong S.-J. et al. Final version of 2009 AJCC melanoma staging and classification. J Clin Oncol 2009;27(36):6199—206. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.4799

6. Gershenwald J.E., Scolyer R.A., Hess K.R. et al. Melanoma staging: evidence-based changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67(6):472—92. DOI: 10.3322/caac.21409

7. Dixon A.J., Sladden M., Zouboulis C.C. et al. Primary cutaneous melanoma — management in 2024. J Clin Med 2024;13(6):1607. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13061607

8. Scolyer R.A., Judge M.J., Evans A. et al. Data set for pathology reporting of cutaneous invasive melanoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2013;37(12):1797—814. DOI: 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31829d7f35

9. College of American Pathologists (CAP). Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive melanoma of the skin Northfield (IL): CAP; 2025 [cited 2025-10-27]. Available at: https://www.cap.org/cancerprotocols

10. Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath). Dataset for histopathological reporting of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma and regional lymph nodes (G125). Standards and datasets for reporting cancers. London: RCPath, 2019.

11. Brown E., Fraser S., Quaba O. et al. Cutaneous melanoma: an updated SIGN guideline. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2017;47(3):214—7. DOI: 10.4997/jrcpe.2017.302

12. Stroyakovskiy D.L., Abduloeva N.Kh., Demidov L.V et al. Skin melanoma. Practical recommendations RUSSCO. Zlokachestvennye opukholi = Malignant Tumors 2024;14(3s2—2): 300-29. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.18027/2224-5057-2024-14-3s2-1.2-12

13. Cancer Council Australia; Australian Cancer Network; Ministry of Health (New Zealand). Clinical practice guidelines for the management of melanoma in Australia and New Zealand: evidence-based best practice guidelines. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia, 2008.

14. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). Cutaneous melanoma (SIGN 146). Edinburgh: SIGN, 2017 (updated 2023) [cited 2025-10-27]. Available at: https://www.sign.ac.uk/our-guidelines/cutaneous-melanoma/

15. International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). How ICCR started. Sydney: ICCR, 2011-2025 [cited 2025-10-27]. Available at: https://www.iccr-cancer.org/about/how-iccr-started/

16. Scolyer R.A., Shaw H.M., Thompson J.F. et al. Interobserver reproducibility of histopathologic prognostic variables in primary cutaneous melanomas. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(12):1571—6. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200312000-00011

17. Nurdjaja V., Yozu M., Mathy J.A. Essential components of melanoma histopathological reporting: the surgical oncologist’s perspective. J Skin Cancer 2018;2018:9838410. DOI: 10.1155/2018/9838410

18. Blessing K., McLaren K.M., McLean A., Davidson P Thin malignant melanomas (<1.5 mm) with metastasis: a histological study and survival analysis. Histopathology 1990;17(5):389—95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1990.tb00757.x

19. Rubinstein J.C., Han G., Jackson L. et al. Regression in thin melanoma is associated with nodal recurrence after a negative sentinel node biopsy. Cancer Med 2016;5(10): 2832-40. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.922

20. Kaur M.R., Colloby P.S., Martin-Clavijo A., Marsden J.R. Melanoma histopathology reporting: are we complying with the National Minimum Dataset? J Clin Pathol 2007;60(10):1121 —3. DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2006.042937

21. Azzola M.F., Shaw H.M., Thompson J.F. et al. Tumor mitotic rate is a more powerful prognostic indicator than ulceration in patients with primary cutaneous melanoma. Cancer 2003;97(6):1488—98. DOI: 10.1002/cncr.11196

22. Thompson J.F., Soong S.-J., Balch C.M. et al. Prognostic significance of mitotic rate in localized primary cutaneous melanoma: an analysis of patients in the multi-institutional American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging database. J Clin Oncol 2011;29(16):2199—205. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.5812

23. Keung E.Z., Gershenwald J.E. The eighth edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) melanoma staging system: implications for melanoma treatment and care. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2018;18(8):775—84. DOI: 10.1080/14737140.2018.1489246

24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Melanoma: assessment and management (NG14). London: NICE; 2022 [cited 2025-10-27]. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/ guidance/ng14

25. Swetter S.M., Johnson D., Albertini M.R. et al. NCCN Guidelines® insights: melanoma: cutaneous, version 2.2024. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2024;22(5):290—8. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2024.0036

26. Karim R.Z., van den Berg K.S., Colman M.H. et al. The advantage of using a synoptic pathology report format for cutaneous melanoma. Histopathology 2008;52(2):130—8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02921.x

27. Sluijter C.E., van Lonkhuijzen L.R.C.W., van Slooten H.-J. et al. The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review. Virchows Arch 2016;468(6):639—49. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-016-1935-8