Supratherapeutic International Normalized Ratio in a Patient on Warfarin Following Initiation of Brexpiprazole Pharmacotherapy: A Case Report.

Many medications have established interactions with warfarin, potentially affecting international normalized ratio (INR) levels and increasing the risk of bleeding complications. We present the case of a 74-year-old female inpatient with late-onset schizophrenia who was initiated on brexpiprazole while concurrently receiving warfarin therapy for a ventricular thrombus. Despite INR levels being within a range of 1.8 to 2.7 prior to brexpiprazole initiation, the patient's INR increased sharply to 6 within five days, leading to a potential gastrointestinal bleed that required medical admission. While the manufacturer's in-vitro studies suggest that brexpiprazole does not displace warfarin from albumin, both drugs exhibit greater than 99% protein binding. This case highlights the critical need for close monitoring of INR levels when initiating brexpiprazole in patients on warfarin therapy, due to the potential for warfarin displacement from plasma proteins and subsequent bleeding complications. This interaction warrants further exploration, and clinicians should exercise caution when using these medications concomitantly.

Breast Cancer Prognostic Factors in the Digital Era: Comparison of Nottingham Grade using Whole Slide Images and Glass Slides.

BACKGROUND: To assess reproducibility and accuracy of overall Nottingham grade and component scores using digital whole slide images (WSIs) compared to glass slides. METHODS: Two hundred and eight pathologists were randomized to independently interpret 1 of 4 breast biopsy sets using either glass slides or digital WSI. Each set included 5 or 6 invasive carcinomas (22 total invasive cases). Participants interpreted the same biopsy set approximately 9 months later following a second randomization to WSI or glass slides. Nottingham grade, including component scores, was assessed on each interpretation, providing 2045 independent interpretations of grade. Overall grade and component scores were compared between pathologists (interobserver agreement) and for interpretations by the same pathologist (intraobserver agreement). Grade assessments were compared when the format (WSI vs. glass slides) changed or was the same for the two interpretations. RESULTS: Nottingham grade intraobserver agreement was highest using glass slides for both interpretations (73%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 68%, 78%) and slightly lower but not statistically different using digital WSI for both interpretations (68%, 95% CI: 61%, 75%; P= 0.22). The agreement was lowest when the format changed between interpretations (63%, 95% CI: 59%, 68%). Interobserver agreement was significantly higher (P < 0.001) using glass slides versus digital WSI (68%, 95% CI: 66%, 70% versus 60%, 95% CI: 57%, 62%, respectively). Nuclear pleomorphism scores had the lowest inter- and intra-observer agreement. Mitotic scores were higher on glass slides in inter- and intra-observer comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists' intraobserver agreement (reproducibility) is similar for Nottingham grade using glass slides or WSI. However, slightly lower agreement between pathologists suggests that verification of grade using digital WSI may be more challenging.

Characteristics and diagnostic performance of pathologists who enjoy interpreting melanocytic lesions.

Diagnostic discrepancy among pathologists interpreting melanocytic skin lesions (MSL) is an ongoing concern for patient care. Given that job satisfaction could impact patient care, this study aimed to characterize which pathologists enjoy interpreting MSL and estimate the association between enjoyment and diagnostic accuracy. Pathologists' demographics, training, and experience were obtained by a cross-sectional survey. Associations between these characteristics and self-reported enjoyment when interpreting MSL were estimated by Pearson's Chi-square tests. Diagnostic accuracy was determined by comparing pathologists' MSL interpretations with reference standard diagnoses. Associations between enjoyment and diagnostic accuracy were evaluated by generalized estimating equations (GEE) models. One hundred and eighty-seven (90%) pathologists completed the study. Seventy percent agreed that interpreting MSL is enjoyable. Pathologists who enjoyed interpreting MSL were more likely to be board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology (P=0.008), have ?10 years of experience (P=0.010) and have an MSL caseload of ?60 per month (P=<0.001). After adjustment, there was no association between enjoyment and diagnostic accuracy. Our data suggest that job dissatisfaction does not adversely affect diagnostic accuracy in the interpretation of melanocytic lesions, which is of importance given the progressive increase in annual biopsy rates and the attendant work demands imposed on pathologists.

Malpractice Concerns, Defensive Medicine, and the Histopathology Diagnosis of Melanocytic Skin Lesions.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of malpractice concerns on pathologists' use of defensive medicine and interpretations of melanocytic skin lesions (MSLs) is unknown. METHODS: A total of 207 pathologists interpreting MSLs responded to a survey about past involvement in malpractice litigation, influence of malpractice concerns on diagnosis, and use of assurance behaviors (defensive medicine) to alleviate malpractice concerns. Assurance behaviors included requesting second opinions, additional slides, additional sampling, and ordering specialized tests. RESULTS: Of the pathologists, 27.5% reported that malpractice concerns influenced them toward a more severe MSL diagnosis. Nearly all (95.2%) pathologists reported practicing at least one assurance behavior due to malpractice concerns, and this practice was associated with being influenced toward a more severe MSL diagnosis (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-5.26). CONCLUSIONS: One of four US skin pathologists upgrade MSL diagnosis due to malpractice concerns, and nearly all practice assurance behaviors. Assurance behaviors are associated with rendering a more severe MSL diagnosis.

Complexities of perceived and actual performance in pathology interpretation: A comparison of cutaneous melanocytic skin and breast interpretations.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how pathologists process differences between actual and perceived interpretations. OBJECTIVE: To compare perceived and actual diagnostic agreement before and after educational interventions. METHODS: Pathologists interpreted test sets of skin and/or breast specimens that included benign, atypical, in situ and invasive lesions. Interventions involved self-directed learning, one skin and one breast, that showed pathologists how their interpretations compared to a reference diagnoses. Prior to the educational intervention, participants estimated how their interpretations would compare to the reference diagnoses. After the intervention, participants estimated their overall agreement with the reference diagnoses. Perceived and actual agreements were compared. RESULTS: For pathologists interpreting skin, mean actual agreement was 52.4% and overall pre- and postinterventional mean perceived agreement was 72.9% vs 54.2%, an overestimated mean difference of 20.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.2% to 24.0%) and 1.8% (95% CI -0.5% to 4.1%), respectively. For pathologists interpreting breast, mean actual agreement was 75.9% and overall pre- and postinterventional mean perceived agreement was 81.4% vs 76.9%, an overestimation of 5.5% (95% CI 3.0% to 8.0%) and 1.0% (95% CI 0.0% to 2.0%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists interpreting breast tissue had improved comprehension of their performance after the intervention compared to pathologists interpreting skin lesions.

An Assessment of Primary Care and Pulmonary Provider Perspectives on Lung Cancer Screening.

RATIONALE: Lung cancer screening has a mortality benefit to high-risk smokers, but implementation remains suboptimal. Providers represent the key entry point to screening, and an understanding of provider perspectives on lung cancer screening is necessary to improve referral and overall implementation. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to understand knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to screening in a diverse group of referring pulmonologists and primary care providers. METHODS: We conducted an electronic survey of primary care and pulmonary providers within a tertiary care medical center across different practice sites. The survey covered the following domains: 1) beliefs and assessment of evidence, 2) knowledge of lung cancer screening and guidelines, 3) current screening practices, 4) barriers and facilitators, and 5) demographic and practice characteristics. RESULTS: The 196 participants included 80% primary care clinicians and 19% pulmonologists (1% others). Forty-one percent practiced at university-based or affiliated clinics, 47% at county hospital-based clinics, and 12% at other or unidentified sites. The majority endorsed lung cancer screening effectiveness (74%); however, performance on knowledge-based assessments of screening eligibility, documentation, and nodule management was suboptimal. Key barriers included inadequate time (36%), inadequate staffing (36%), and patients having too many other illnesses to address screening (38%). Decision aids, which are used at the point of referral, were commonly identified both as important lung cancer screening clinical facilitators (51%) and as provider knowledge facilitators (59%). There were several differences by provider specialty, including primary care providers more frequently reporting time constraints and their patients having too many other illnesses to address screening as significant barriers to lung cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Providers endorsed the benefits of lung cancer screening, but there are limitations in provider knowledge of key screening components. The most frequently reported barriers to screening represent a lack of clinical time or resources to address lung cancer screening in clinical practice. Facilitators for nodule management as well as point-of-care referral materials may be helpful in reducing knowledge gaps and the clinical burden of referral. These are all modifiable factors, which could be addressed to increase screening referral. Differences in attitudes and barriers by specialty should also be considered to optimize screening implementation.

Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Research examining the role of second opinions in pathology for diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess current laboratory policies, clinical use of second opinions, and pathologists' perceptions of second opinions for melanocytic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional data collected from 207 pathologists in 10 US states who diagnose melanocytic lesions. The web-based survey ascertained pathologists' professional information, laboratory second opinion policy, use of second opinions, and perceptions of second opinion value for melanocytic lesions. RESULTS: Laboratory policies required second opinions for 31% of pathologists and most commonly required for melanoma in situ (26%) and invasive melanoma (30%). In practice, most pathologists reported requesting second opinions for melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential (85%) and atypical Spitzoid lesions (88%). Most pathologists perceived that second opinions increased interpretive accuracy (78%) and protected them from malpractice lawsuits (62%). CONCLUSION: Use of second opinions in clinical practice is greater than that required by laboratory policies, especially for melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential and atypical Spitzoid lesions. Quality of care in surgical interventions for atypical melanocytic proliferations critically depends on the accuracy of diagnosis in pathology reporting. Future research should examine the extent to which second opinions improve accuracy of melanocytic lesion diagnosis.

The diagnostic challenge of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic agreement among pathologists is 84% for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Studies of interpretive variation according to grade are limited. METHODS: A national sample of 115 pathologists interpreted 240 breast pathology test set cases in the Breast Pathology Study and their interpretations were compared to expert consensus interpretations. We assessed agreement of pathologists' interpretations with a consensus reference diagnosis of DCIS dichotomised into low- and high-grade lesions. Generalised estimating equations were used in logistic regression models of rates of under- and over-interpretation of DCIS by grade. RESULTS: We evaluated 2097 independent interpretations of DCIS (512 low-grade DCIS and 1585 high-grade DCIS). Agreement with reference diagnoses was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42-51) for low-grade DCIS and 83% (95% CI 81-86) for high-grade DCIS. The proportion of reference low-grade DCIS interpretations over-interpreted by pathologists (i.e. categorised as either high-grade DCIS or invasive cancer) was 23% (95% CI 19-28); 30% (95% CI 26-34) were interpreted as a lower diagnostic category (atypia or benign proliferative). Reference high-grade DCIS was under-interpreted in 14% (95% CI 12-16) of observations and only over-interpreted 3% (95% CI 2-4). CONCLUSION: Grade is a major factor when examining pathologists' variability in diagnosing DCIS, with much lower agreement for low-grade DCIS cases compared to high-grade. These findings support the hypothesis that low-grade DCIS poses a greater interpretive challenge than high-grade DCIS, which should be considered when developing DCIS management strategies.

Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies.

AIMS: Second opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for second opinion despite second opinion consultations being part of the diagnostic system of pathology. Therefore we sought to assess breast biopsy cases and interpreting pathologists characteristics associated with second opinion requests. METHODS: Collected pathologist surveys and their interpretations of 60 test set cases were used to explore the relationships between case characteristics, pathologist characteristics and case perceptions, and requests for second opinions. Data were evaluated by logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: 115 pathologists provided 6900 assessments; pathologists requested second opinions on 70% (4827/6900) of their assessments 36% (1731/4827) of these would not have been required by policy. All associations between case characteristics and requesting second opinions were statistically significant, including diagnostic category, breast density, biopsy type, and number of diagnoses noted per case. Exclusive of institutional policies, pathologists wanted second opinions most frequently for atypia (66%) and least frequently for invasive cancer (20%). Second opinion rates were higher when the pathologist had lower assessment confidence, in cases with higher perceived difficulty, and cases with borderline diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists request second opinions for challenging cases, particularly those with atypia, high breast density, core needle biopsies, or many co-existing diagnoses. Further studies should evaluate whether the case characteristics identified in this study could be used as clinical criteria to prompt system-level strategies for mandating second opinions.

Surgical implications and variability in the use of the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis on breast biopsy specimens.

OBJECTIVES: Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a relatively new diagnostic term with uncertain clinical significance for surgical management. Any implied risk of invasive breast cancer associated with FEA is contingent upon diagnostic reproducibility, yet little is known regarding its use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study interpreted one of four 60-case test sets, one slide per case, constructed from 240 breast biopsy specimens. An electronic data form with standardized diagnostic categories was used; participants were instructed to indicate all diagnoses present. We assessed participants' use of FEA as a diagnostic term within: 1) each test set; 2) 72 cases classified by reference as benign without FEA; and 3) six cases classified by reference as FEA. 115 pathologists participated, providing 6900 total independent assessments. RESULTS: Notation of FEA ranged from 0% to 35% of the cases interpreted, with most pathologists noting FEA on 4 or more test cases. At least one participant noted FEA in 34 of the 72 benign non-FEA cases. For the 6 reference FEA cases, participant agreement with the case reference FEA diagnosis ranged from 17% to 52%; diagnoses noted by participating pathologists for these FEA cases included columnar cell hyperplasia, usual ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and atypical ductal hyperplasia. CONCLUSIONS: We observed wide variation in the diagnosis of FEA among U.S. pathologists. This suggests that perceptions of diagnostic criteria and any implied risk associated with FEA may also vary. Surgical excision following a core biopsy diagnosis of FEA should be reconsidered and studied further.

The influence of tumor regression, solar elastosis, and patient age on pathologists' interpretation of melanocytic skin lesions.

It is not known whether patient age or tumor characteristics such as tumor regression or solar elastosis influence pathologists' interpretation of melanocytic skin lesions (MSLs). We undertook a study to determine the influence of these factors, and to explore pathologist's characteristics associated with the direction of diagnosis. To meet our objective, we designed a cross-sectional survey study of pathologists' clinical practices and perceptions. Pathologists were recruited from diverse practices in 10 states in the United States. We enrolled 207 pathologist participants whose practice included the interpretation of MSLs. Our findings indicated that the majority of pathologists (54.6%) were influenced toward a less severe diagnosis when patients were <30 years of age. Most pathologists were influenced toward a more severe diagnosis when patients were >70 years of age, or by the presence of tumor regression or solar elastosis (58.5%, 71.0%, and 57.0%, respectively). Generally, pathologists with dermatopathology board certification and/or a high caseload of MSLs were more likely to be influenced, whereas those with more years' experience interpreting MSL were less likely to be influenced. Our findings indicate that the interpretation of MSLs is influenced by patient age, tumor regression, and solar elastosis; such influence is associated with dermatopathology training and higher caseload, consistent with expertise and an appreciation of lesion complexity.

Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons may receive a different diagnosis when a breast biopsy is interpreted by a second pathologist. The extent to which diagnostic agreement by the same pathologist varies at two time points is unknown. METHODS: Pathologists from eight U.S. states independently interpreted 60 breast specimens, one glass slide per case, on two occasions separated by ≥9 months. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing interpretations between the two time points; associations between reproducibility (intraobserver agreement rates); and characteristics of pathologists and cases were determined and also compared with interobserver agreement of baseline interpretations. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented; 49 interpreted glass slides in both study phases, resulting in 2940 interpretations. Intraobserver agreement rates between the two phases were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-95] for invasive breast cancer, 84% (95% CI 81-87) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 53% (95% CI 47-59) for atypia, and 84% (95% CI 81-86) for benign without atypia. When comparing all study participants' case interpretations at baseline, interobserver agreement rates were 89% (95% CI 84-92) for invasive cancer, 79% (95% CI 76-81) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 43% (95% CI 41-45) for atypia, and 77% (95% CI 74-79) for benign without atypia. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretive agreement between two time points by the same individual pathologist was low for atypia and was similar to observed rates of agreement for atypia between different pathologists. Physicians and patients should be aware of the diagnostic challenges associated with a breast biopsy diagnosis of atypia when considering treatment and surveillance decisions.

The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making.

BACKGROUND: Medical decision making may be influenced by contextual factors. We evaluated whether pathologists are influenced by disease severity of recently observed cases. METHODS: Pathologists independently interpreted 60 breast biopsy specimens (one slide per case; 240 total cases in the study) in a prospective randomized observational study. Pathologists interpreted the same cases in 2 phases, separated by a washout period of >6 months. Participants were not informed that the cases were identical in each phase, and the sequence was reordered randomly for each pathologist and between phases. A consensus reference diagnosis was established for each case by 3 experienced breast pathologists. Ordered logit models examined the effect the pathologists' diagnoses on the preceding case or the 5 preceding cases had on their diagnosis for the subsequent index case. RESULTS: Among 152 pathologists, 49 provided interpretive data in both phases I and II, 66 from only phase I, and 37 from phase II only. In phase I, pathologists were more likely to indicate a more severe diagnosis than the reference diagnosis when the preceding case was diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive cancer (proportional odds ratio [POR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-1.42). Results were similar when considering the preceding 5 cases and for the pathologists in phase II who interpreted the same cases in a different order compared with phase I (POR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.31). CONCLUSION: Physicians appear to be influenced by the severity of previously interpreted test cases. Understanding types and sources of diagnostic bias may lead to improved assessment of accuracy and better patient care.

Epibulbar Nodular Fasciitis.

PURPOSE: To report a case of epibulbar nodular fasciitis in a 32-year-old female and provide context by reviewing the current literature. RESULTS: Using excisional biopsy, the patient was successfully diagnosed and treated for epibulbar nodular fasciitis. Upon follow-up, there has been no recurrence, consistent with the typical course for nodular fasciitis. CONCLUSIONS: Epibulbar nodular fasciitis is a rare process that can be successfully treated by surgical resection. While two cases of trauma-associated epibulbar nodular fasciitis have been present in the literature, our case did not have such a history. The etiology of nodular fasciitis remains unclear.

Evaluation of the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) classification scheme for diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms: Results from the International Melanoma Pathology Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Pathologists use diverse terminology when interpreting melanocytic neoplasms, potentially compromising quality of care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) scheme, a 5-category classification system for melanocytic lesions. METHODS: Participants (n = 16) of the 2013 International Melanoma Pathology Study Group Workshop provided independent case-level diagnoses and treatment suggestions for 48 melanocytic lesions. Individual diagnoses (including, when necessary, least and most severe diagnoses) were mapped to corresponding MPATH-Dx classes. Interrater agreement and correlation between MPATH-Dx categorization and treatment suggestions were evaluated. RESULTS: Most participants were board-certified dermatopathologists (n = 15), age 50 years or older (n = 12), male (n = 9), based in the United States (n = 11), and primary academic faculty (n = 14). Overall, participants generated 634 case-level diagnoses with treatment suggestions. Mean weighted kappa coefficients for diagnostic agreement after MPATH-Dx mapping (assuming least and most severe diagnoses, when necessary) were 0.70 (95% confidence interval 0.68-0.71) and 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.73), respectively, whereas correlation between MPATH-Dx categorization and treatment suggestions was 0.91. LIMITATIONS: This was a small sample size of experienced pathologists in a testing situation. CONCLUSION: Varying diagnostic nomenclature can be classified into a concise hierarchy using the MPATH-Dx scheme. Further research is needed to determine whether this classification system can facilitate diagnostic concordance in general pathology practice and improve patient care.

Region of interest identification and diagnostic agreement in breast pathology.

A pathologist's accurate interpretation relies on identifying relevant histopathological features. Little is known about the precise relationship between feature identification and diagnostic decision making. We hypothesized that greater overlap between a pathologist's selected diagnostic region of interest (ROI) and a consensus derived ROI is associated with higher diagnostic accuracy. We developed breast biopsy test cases that included atypical ductal hyperplasia (n=80); ductal carcinoma in situ (n=78); and invasive breast cancer (n=22). Benign cases were excluded due to the absence of specific abnormalities. Three experienced breast pathologists conducted an independent review of the 180 digital whole slide images, established a reference consensus diagnosis and marked one or more diagnostic ROIs for each case. Forty-four participating pathologists independently diagnosed and marked ROIs on the images. Participant diagnoses and ROI were compared with consensus reference diagnoses and ROI. Regression models tested whether percent overlap between participant ROI and consensus reference ROI predicted diagnostic accuracy. Each of the 44 participants interpreted 39-50 cases for a total of 1972 individual diagnoses. Percent ROI overlap with the expert reference ROI was higher in pathologists who self-reported academic affiliation (69 vs 65%, P=0.002). Percent overlap between participants' ROI and consensus reference ROI was then classified into ordinal categories: 0, 1-33, 34-65, 66-99 and 100% overlap. For each incremental change in the ordinal percent ROI overlap, diagnostic agreement increased by 60% (OR 1.6, 95% CI (1.5-1.7), P<0.001) and the association remained significant even after adjustment for other covariates. The magnitude of the association between ROI overlap and diagnostic agreement increased with increasing diagnostic severity. The findings indicate that pathologists are more likely to converge with an expert reference diagnosis when they identify an overlapping diagnostic image region, suggesting that future computer-aided detection systems that highlight potential diagnostic regions could be a helpful tool to improve accuracy and education.

Identifying and processing the gap between perceived and actual agreement in breast pathology interpretation.

We examined how pathologists' process their perceptions of how their interpretations on diagnoses for breast pathology cases agree with a reference standard. To accomplish this, we created an individualized self-directed continuing medical education program that showed pathologists interpreting breast specimens how their interpretations on a test set compared with a reference diagnosis developed by a consensus panel of experienced breast pathologists. After interpreting a test set of 60 cases, 92 participating pathologists were asked to estimate how their interpretations compared with the standard for benign without atypia, atypia, ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer. We then asked pathologists their thoughts about learning about differences in their perceptions compared with actual agreement. Overall, participants tended to overestimate their agreement with the reference standard, with a mean difference of 5.5% (75.9% actual agreement; 81.4% estimated agreement), especially for atypia and were least likely to overestimate it for invasive breast cancer. Non-academic affiliated pathologists were more likely to more closely estimate their performance relative to academic affiliated pathologists (77.6 vs 48%; P=0.001), whereas participants affiliated with an academic medical center were more likely to underestimate agreement with their diagnoses compared with non-academic affiliated pathologists (40 vs 6%). Before the continuing medical education program, nearly 55% (54.9%) of participants could not estimate whether they would overinterpret the cases or underinterpret them relative to the reference diagnosis. Nearly 80% (79.8%) reported learning new information from this individualized web-based continuing medical education program, and 23.9% of pathologists identified strategies they would change their practice to improve. In conclusion, when evaluating breast pathology specimens, pathologists do a good job of estimating their diagnostic agreement with a reference standard, but for atypia cases, pathologists tend to overestimate diagnostic agreement. Many participants were able to identify ways to improve.

The self-reported use of immunostains and cytogenetic testing in the diagnosis of melanoma by practicing U.S. pathologists of 10 selected states.

BACKGROUNDS: The diagnosis of melanoma can be challenging, especially in lesions for which the histopathologic criteria bridge two or more taxonomic categories. Newer genomic analytical methods of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) have been introduced as ancillary techniques to differentiate benign and malignant melanocytic proliferations. METHODS: We evaluated how pathologists perceive and are incorporating these new cytogenetic testing technologies into their practices. We conducted a study of 207 U.S. pathologists who interpret melanocytic lesions in clinical practice in 10 SEER states. Pathologists were surveyed regarding perceptions and utilization of FISH and/or CGH in their clinical practices. RESULTS: Results showed that 38% of pathologists use FISH and/or CGH in interpreting melanocytic lesions. Pathologists reporting FISH and/or CGH use were significantly younger (p < 0.05), were fellowship trained or board certified in dermatopathology (p < 0.001) and were affiliated with an academic institute (p < 0.001). Pathologists reporting that their colleagues consider them an expert in the assessment of melanocytic lesions were more likely to employ FISH and/or CGH in their practices than non-experts. CONCLUSIONS: Early users of cytogenetic testing technologies in cutaneous pathology are more likely to be younger, affiliated with an academic institution and fellowship trained or board certified in dermatopathology.

Use of Digital Whole Slide Imaging in Dermatopathology.

Digital whole slide imaging (WSI) is an emerging technology for pathology interpretation, with specific challenges for dermatopathology, yet little is known about pathologists' practice patterns or perceptions regarding WSI for interpretation of melanocytic lesions. A national sample of pathologists (N = 207) was recruited from 864 invited pathologists from ten US states (CA, CT, HI, IA, KY, LA, NJ, NM, UT, and WA). Pathologists who had interpreted melanocytic lesions in the past year were surveyed in this cross-sectional study. The survey included questions on pathologists' experience, WSI practice patterns and perceptions using a 6-point Likert scale. Agreement was summarized with descriptive statistics to characterize pathologists' use and perceptions of WSI. The majority of participating pathologists were between 40 and 59 years of age (62%) and not affiliated with an academic medical center (71%). Use of WSI was seen more often among dermatopathologists and participants affiliated with an academic medical center. Experience with WSI was reported by 41%, with the most common type of use being for education and testing (CME, board exams, and teaching in general, 71%), and clinical use at tumor boards and conferences (44%). Most respondents (77%) agreed that accurate diagnoses can be made with this technology, and 59% agreed that benefits of WSI outweigh concerns. However, 78% of pathologists reported that digital slides are too slow for routine clinical interpretation. The respondents were equally split as to whether they would like to adopt WSI (49%) or not (51%). The majority of pathologists who interpret melanocytic lesions do not use WSI, but among pathologists who do, use is largely for CME, licensure/board exams, and teaching. Positive perceptions regarding WSI slightly outweigh negative perceptions. Understanding practice patterns with WSI as dissemination advances may facilitate concordance of perceptions with adoption of the technology.