A critique of current classifications of vulvar diseases

Several classifications of vulvar diseases have been proposed, but none of them is either consistent internally or applicable clinically and histopathologically. Ambiguous and even inexplicable terms such as "atypical epithelial hyperplasia (dysplasia)", "vulvar dystrophy," "vulvar atypia," "atrophic dystrophy," "mixed dystrophy," and "vulvar intra-epithelial neoplasia" prevent clinicians and histopathologists from communicating effectively with each other. In addition, these terms have different meanings to dermatologists, pathologists, and gynecologists--if indeed they have any meaning at all. If that maelstrom of confusion is to be avoided, diagnoses by histopathologists must be made in the language of clinical medicine. Only then will clinicians be able to understand those diagnoses and thereby manage patients rationally. For example, if findings by conventional microscopy are those of squamous-cell carcinoma in situ of the vulva, the diagnosis of pathologists should be Bowen's disease or bowenoid papulosis and not "vulvar intra-epithelial neoplasia"--a term that is just as applicable to seborrheic keratosis as it is to Bowen's disease and bowenoid papulosis.