Machine learning classification of diagnostic accuracy in pathologists interpreting breast biopsies.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the feasibility of using machine learning to predict accurate versus inaccurate diagnoses made by pathologists based on their spatiotemporal viewing behavior when evaluating digital breast biopsy images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study gathered data from 140 pathologists of varying experience levels who each reviewed a set of 14 digital whole slide images of breast biopsy tissue. Pathologists' viewing behavior, including zooming and panning actions, was recorded during image evaluation. A total of 30 features were extracted from the viewing behavior data, and 4 machine learning algorithms were used to build classifiers for predicting diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The Random Forest classifier demonstrated the best overall performance, achieving a test accuracy of 0.81 and area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve of 0.86. Features related to attention distribution and focus on critical regions of interest were found to be important predictors of diagnostic accuracy. Further including case-level and pathologist-level information incrementally improved classifier performance. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that pathologists' viewing behavior during digital image evaluation can be leveraged to predict diagnostic accuracy, affording automated feedback and decision support systems based on viewing behavior to aid in training and, ultimately, clinical practice. They also carry implications for basic research examining the interplay between perception, thought, and action in diagnostic decision-making. CONCLUSION: The classifiers developed herein have potential applications in training and clinical settings to provide timely feedback and support to pathologists during diagnostic decision-making. Further research could explore the generalizability of these findings to other medical domains and varied levels of expertise.

Pathologist Characteristics Associated With Rendering Higher-Grade Diagnoses for Melanocytic Lesions.

Importance: The incidence of melanoma diagnoses has been increasing in recent decades, and controlled studies have indicated high histopathologic discordance across the intermediate range of melanocytic lesions. The respective causes for these phenomena remain incompletely understood. Objective: To identify pathologist characteristics associated with tendencies to diagnose melanocytic lesions as higher grade vs lower grade or to diagnose invasive melanoma vs any less severe diagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This exploratory study used data from 2 nationwide studies (the Melanoma Pathology [M-Path] study, conducted from July 2013 to May 2016, and the Reducing Errors in Melanocytic Interpretations [REMI] study, conducted from August 2018 to March 2021) in which participating pathologists who interpreted melanocytic lesions in their clinical practices interpreted study cases in glass slide format. Each pathologist was randomly assigned to interpret a set of study cases from a repository of skin biopsy samples of melanocytic lesions; each case was independently interpreted by multiple pathologists. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to February 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of pathologist characteristics with diagnosis of a study case as higher grade (including severely dysplastic and melanoma in situ) vs lower grade (including mild to moderately dysplastic nevi) and diagnosis of invasive melanoma vs any less severe diagnosis was assessed using logistic regression. Characteristics included demographics (age, gender, and geographic region), years of experience, academic affiliation, caseload of melanocytic lesions in their practice, specialty training, and history of malpractice suits. Results: A total of 338 pathologists were included: 113 general pathologists and 74 dermatopathologists from M-Path and 151 dermatopathologists from REMI. The predominant factor associated with rendering more severe diagnoses was specialist training in dermatopathology (board certification and/or fellowship training). Pathologists with this training were more likely to render higher-grade diagnoses (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 2.10-3.30; P < .001) and to diagnose invasive melanoma (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.53-2.49; P < .001) than pathologists without this training interpreting the same case. Nonmitogenic pT1a diagnoses (stage pT1a melanomas with no mitotic activity) accounted for the observed difference in diagnosis of invasive melanoma; when these lesions, which carry a low risk of metastasis, were grouped with the less severe diagnoses, there was no observed association (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.23; P = .71). Among dermatopathologists, those with a higher caseload of melanocytic lesions in their practice were more likely to assign higher-grade diagnoses (OR for trend, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that specialty training in dermatopathology is associated with a greater tendency to diagnose atypical melanocytic proliferations as pT1a melanomas. These low-risk melanomas constitute a growing proportion of melanomas diagnosed in the US.

Implementing the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis: Long-term effect of a simple educational intervention.

Background: A standardized pathology management tool for melanocytic skin lesions may improve patient care by simplifying interpretation and categorization of the diverse terminology currently extant. Objective: To assess an online educational intervention that teaches dermatopathologists to use the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx), a schema collapsing multiple diagnostic terms into 5 classes ranging from benign to invasive melanoma. Methods: Practicing dermatopathologists (N = 149) from 40 US states participated in a 2-year educational intervention study (71% response rate). The intervention involved a brief tutorial followed by practice on 28 melanocytic lesions, with the goal of teaching pathologists how to correctly use the MPATH-Dx schema; competence using the MPATH-Dx tool 12-24 months postintervention was assessed. Participants' self-reported confidence using the MPATH-Dx tool was assessed preintervention and postintervention. Results: At preintervention, confidence using the MPATH-Dx tool was already high, despite 68% lacking prior familiarity with it, and confidence increased postintervention (P = .0003). During the intervention, participants used the MPATH-Dx tool correctly for 90% of their interpretations; postintervention, participants used the MPATH-Dx tool correctly for 88% of their interpretations. Limitations: Future research should examine implementing a standardized pathology assessment schema in actual clinical practice. Conclusion: Dermatopathologists can be taught to confidently and competently use the MPATH-Dx schema with a simple educational tutorial followed by practice.

Pathologist pupil dilation reflects experience level and difficulty in diagnosing medical images.

Purpose: Digital whole slide imaging allows pathologists to view slides on a computer screen instead of under a microscope. Digital viewing allows for real-time monitoring of pathologists' search behavior and neurophysiological responses during the diagnostic process. One particular neurophysiological measure, pupil diameter, could provide a basis for evaluating clinical competence during training or developing tools that support the diagnostic process. Prior research shows that pupil diameter is sensitive to cognitive load and arousal, and it switches between exploration and exploitation of a visual image. Different categories of lesions in pathology pose different levels of challenge, as indicated by diagnostic disagreement among pathologists. If pupil diameter is sensitive to the perceived difficulty in diagnosing biopsies, eye-tracking could potentially be used to identify biopsies that may benefit from a second opinion. Approach: We measured case onset baseline-corrected (phasic) and uncorrected (tonic) pupil diameter in 90 pathologists who each viewed and diagnosed 14 digital breast biopsy cases that cover the diagnostic spectrum from benign to invasive breast cancer. Pupil data were extracted from the beginning of viewing and interpreting of each individual case. After removing 122 trials ( < 10 % ) with poor eye-tracking quality, 1138 trials remained. We used multiple linear regression with robust standard error estimates to account for dependent observations within pathologists. Results: We found a positive association between the magnitude of phasic dilation and subject-centered difficulty ratings and between the magnitude of tonic dilation and untransformed difficulty ratings. When controlling for case diagnostic category, only the tonic-difficulty relationship persisted. Conclusions: Results suggest that tonic pupil dilation may indicate overall arousal differences between pathologists as they interpret biopsy cases and could signal a need for additional training, experience, or automated decision aids. Phasic dilation is sensitive to characteristics of biopsies that tend to elicit higher difficulty ratings and could indicate a need for a second opinion.

Zoom behavior during visual search modulates pupil diameter and reflects adaptive control states.

Adaptive gain theory proposes that the dynamic shifts between exploration and exploitation control states are modulated by the locus coeruleus-norepinephrine system and reflected in tonic and phasic pupil diameter. This study tested predictions of this theory in the context of a societally important visual search task: the review and interpretation of digital whole slide images of breast biopsies by physicians (pathologists). As these medical images are searched, pathologists encounter difficult visual features and intermittently zoom in to examine features of interest. We propose that tonic and phasic pupil diameter changes during image review may correspond to perceived difficulty and dynamic shifts between exploration and exploitation control states. To examine this possibility, we monitored visual search behavior and tonic and phasic pupil diameter while pathologists (N = 89) interpreted 14 digital images of breast biopsy tissue (1,246 total images reviewed). After viewing the images, pathologists provided a diagnosis and rated the level of difficulty of the image. Analyses of tonic pupil diameter examined whether pupil dilation was associated with pathologists' difficulty ratings, diagnostic accuracy, and experience level. To examine phasic pupil diameter, we parsed continuous visual search data into discrete zoom-in and zoom-out events, including shifts from low to high magnification (e.g., 1× to 10×) and the reverse. Analyses examined whether zoom-in and zoom-out events were associated with phasic pupil diameter change. Results demonstrated that tonic pupil diameter was associated with image difficulty ratings and zoom level, and phasic pupil diameter showed constriction upon zoom-in events, and dilation immediately preceding a zoom-out event. Results are interpreted in the context of adaptive gain theory, information gain theory, and the monitoring and assessment of physicians' diagnostic interpretive processes.

From Image to Diagnosis: Characterizing Sources of Error in Histopathologic Interpretation.

An accurate histopathologic diagnosis on surgical biopsy material is necessary for the clinical management of patients and has important implications for research, clinical trial design/enrollment, and public health education. This study used a mixed methods approach to isolate sources of diagnostic error while residents and attending pathologists interpreted digitized breast biopsy slides. Ninety participants, including pathology residents and attending physicians at major United States medical centers reviewed a set of 14 digitized whole-slide images of breast biopsies. Each case had a consensus-defined diagnosis and critical region of interest (cROI) representing the most significant pathology on the slide. Participants were asked to view unmarked digitized slides, draw their participant region of interest (pROI), describe its features, and render a diagnosis. Participants' review behavior was tracked using case viewer software and an eye-tracking device. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated in comparison to the consensus diagnosis. We measured the frequency of errors emerging during 4 interpretive phases: (1) detecting the cROI, (2) recognizing its relevance, (3) using the correct terminology to describe findings in the pROI, and (4) making a diagnostic decision. According to eye-tracking data, trainees and attending pathologists were very likely (∼94% of the time) to find the cROI when inspecting a slide. However, trainees were less likely to consider the cROI relevant to their diagnosis. Pathology trainees (41% of cases) were more likely to use incorrect terminology to describe pROI features than attending pathologists (21% of cases). Failure to accurately describe features was the only factor strongly associated with an incorrect diagnosis. Identifying where errors emerge in the interpretive and/or descriptive process and working on building organ-specific feature recognition and verbal fluency in describing those features are critical steps for achieving competency in diagnostic decision making.

Effect of Prior Diagnoses on Dermatopathologists' Interpretations of Melanocytic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Medical second opinions are common, although little is known about the best processes for obtaining them. This study assesses whether knowledge of a prior physician's diagnosis influences consulting physicians' diagnoses. Objective: To measure the extent to which dermatopathologists' diagnoses are influenced by prior diagnostic information from another dermatopathologist. Design, Setting, and Participants: Dermatopathologists were randomly assigned to interpret 1 slide set of 18 melanocytic skin biopsy specimens in 2 phases (5 slide sets totaling 90 cases). Phase 1 interpretations were conducted without prior diagnostic information. After a washout period of 12 or more months, dermatopathologists' phase 2 interpretations were conducted with their identical slide set; for a random subset of cases in phase 2, participants were shown prior diagnoses by other dermatopathologists that were either more or less severe than their own phase 1 diagnosis of the case. Using the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis tool, cases ranged from class I (benign) to class V (≥pT1b invasive melanoma). Data collection took place from August 2018 to March 2021, and data analysis was performed from March to December 2021. Intervention: Prior diagnoses were actual diagnoses from board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists. A prior diagnosis was always in a more severe or less severe diagnostic class than the participant's phase 1 interpretation; more or less severe was determined by the randomization scheme. In the control condition of no prior diagnostic information, the participants were told that a prior diagnosis was not available. Main Outcomes and Measures: When exposure was to a prior diagnosis in a higher diagnostic class, the primary study outcome was whether a participant's diagnosis in phase 2 was in a higher diagnostic class than the participant's diagnosis in phase 1. When exposure was to a prior diagnosis in a lower diagnostic class, the primary study outcome was whether a participant's diagnosis in phase 2 was in a lower diagnostic class than the participant's diagnosis in phase 1. The effect of prior diagnostic information was measured using the relative risk (RR) of each outcome relative to the control condition of no prior diagnostic information, adjusted for the diagnostic class of the phase 1 diagnosis. Prior to data collection, it was hypothesized that participants would be swayed in the direction of prior diagnostic information. Results: A total of 149 dermatopathologists (median [range] age, 47 years [34-76] years; 101 [68%] were male) provided 5322 interpretations of study cases. Participants were more likely to increase the severity of their diagnosis when the prior diagnosis was of greater severity compared with when no prior diagnosis was provided (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.34-1.73); likewise, participants gave less severe diagnoses when prior diagnoses were of lesser severity (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59). Trends were similar among dermatopathologists who had previously stated they were "not at all influenced" by prior diagnoses. Prior diagnoses also swayed dermatopathologists away from correct diagnoses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized controlled trial, despite the preference of most dermatopathologists to receive prior diagnoses when providing second opinions, this information swayed them away from a correct diagnosis to an incorrect diagnosis.

Dermatopathologist Perceptions of Overdiagnosis of Melanocytic Skin Lesions and Association With Diagnostic Behaviors.

Importance: Despite evidence of overdiagnosis of in situ and invasive melanoma, neither the perceptions of practicing dermatopathologists about overdiagnosis nor possible associations between perceptions of overdiagnosis and diagnostic practices have been studied. Objective: To examine practicing US dermatopathologists' perceptions of melanoma overdiagnosis as a public health issue, and to associate diagnostic behaviors of dermatopathologists with perceptions of melanoma overdiagnosis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study included 115 board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists and their diagnostic interpretations on a set of 18 skin biopsy cases (5 slide sets comprising 90 melanocytic skin lesions). Participants interpreted cases remotely using their own microscopes. Survey invitations occurred during 2018 to 2019, with data collection completed 2021. Data analysis was performed from June to September 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Agreement vs disagreement that overdiagnosis is a public health issue for atypical nevi, melanoma in situ, and invasive melanoma. Associations between perceptions regarding overdiagnosis and interpretive behavior on study cases. Results: Of 115 dermatopathologists, 68% (95% CI, 59%-76%) agreed that overdiagnosis is a public health issue for atypical nevi; 47% (95% CI, 38%-56%) for melanoma in situ; and 35% (95% CI, 26%-43%) for invasive melanoma. Dermatopathologists with more years in practice were significantly less likely to perceive that atypical nevi are overdiagnosed, eg, 46% of dermatopathologists with 20 or more years of experience agreed that atypical nevi are overdiagnosed compared with 93% of dermatopathologists with 1 to 4 years of experience. Compared with other dermatopathologists, those who agreed that all 3 conditions are overdiagnosed were slightly more likely to diagnose study cases as mild to moderately dysplastic nevi (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.97-1.64; P = .08), but the difference was not statistically significant. Dermatopathologists who agreed that invasive melanoma is overdiagnosed did not significantly differ in diagnosing invasive melanoma for study cases compared with those who disagreed (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.41; P = .44). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, about two-thirds of dermatopathologists thought that atypical nevi are overdiagnosed, half thought that melanoma in situ is overdiagnosed, and one-third thought that invasive melanoma is overdiagnosed. No statistically significant associations were found between perceptions about overdiagnosis and interpretive behavior when diagnosing skin biopsy cases.

Histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions: blinded and nonblinded second opinions offer similar improvement in diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of second opinions in the diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions have examined blinded second opinions, which do not reflect usual clinical practice. The current study, conducted in the USA, investigated both blinded and nonblinded second opinions for their impact on diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: In total, 100 melanocytic skin biopsy cases, ranging from benign to invasive melanoma, were interpreted by 74 dermatopathologists. Subsequently, 151 dermatopathologists performed nonblinded second and third reviews. We compared the accuracy of single reviewers, second opinions obtained from independent, blinded reviewers and second opinions obtained from sequential, nonblinded reviewers. Accuracy was defined with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis. RESULTS: The mean case-level diagnostic accuracy of single reviewers was 65.3% (95% CI 63.4-67.2%). Second opinions arising from sequential, nonblinded reviewers significantly improved accuracy to 69.9% (95% CI 68.0-71.7%; P < 0.001). Similarly, second opinions arising from blinded reviewers improved upon the accuracy of single reviewers (69.2%; 95% CI 68.0-71.7%). Nonblinded reviewers were more likely than blinded reviewers to give diagnoses in the same diagnostic classes as the first diagnosis. Nonblinded reviewers tended to be more confident when they agreed with previous reviewers, even with inaccurate diagnoses. CONCLUSION: We found that both blinded and nonblinded second reviewers offered a similar modest improvement in diagnostic accuracy compared with single reviewers. Obtaining second opinions with knowledge of previous reviews tends to generate agreement among reviews, and may generate unwarranted confidence in an inaccurate diagnosis. Combining aspects of both blinded and nonblinded review in practice may leverage the advantages while mitigating the disadvantages of each approach. Specifically, a second pathologist could give an initial diagnosis blinded to the results of the first pathologist, with subsequent nonblinded discussion between the two pathologists if their diagnoses differ.

Clinical Use of an Electronic Pre-Visit Questionnaire Soliciting Patient Visit Goals and Interim History: A Retrospective Comparison Between Safety-net and Non-Safety-net Clinics.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: We examined an initial step towards co-generation of clinic notes by inviting patients to complete a pre-visit questionnaire that could be inserted into clinic notes by providers and describe the experience in a safety-net and non-safety-net clinic. METHODS: We sent an electronic pre-visit questionnaire on visit goals and interim history to patients at a safety-net clinic and a non-safety-net clinic before clinic visits. We compared questionnaire utilization between clinics during a one-year period and performed a chart review of a sample of patients to examine demographics, content and usage of patient responses to the questionnaire. RESULTS: While use was low in both clinics, it was lower in the safety-net clinic (3%) compared to the non-safety-net clinic (10%). We reviewed a sample of respondents and found they were more likely to be White compared to the overall clinic populations (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-typed notes (word count and number of visit goals) between the safety-net and non-safety-net samples however, patients at the safety-net clinic were less likely to have all of their goals addressed within the PCP documentation, compared to the non-safety-net clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Given potential benefits of this questionnaire as a communication tool, addressing barriers to use of technology among vulnerable patients is needed, including access to devices and internet, and support from caregivers or culturally concordant peer navigators.

Care partners reading patients' visit notes via patient portals: Characteristics and perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Care partners are key members of patients' health care teams, yet little is known about their experiences accessing patient information via electronic portals. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the characteristics and perceptions of care partners who read patients' electronic visit notes. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Focus groups with diverse patients from a community health center provided input into survey development. METHODS: We contacted patient portal users at 3 geographically distinct sites in the US via email in 2017 for an online survey including open ended questions which we qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Respondents chose whether to answer as care partners (N = 874) or patients (N = 28,782). Among care partner respondents, 44% were spouses, 43% children/other family members, and 14% friends/neighbors/other. Both care partners and patients reported that access to electronic notes was very important for promoting positive health behaviors, but care partners' perceptions of importance were consistently more positive than patients' perceptions of engagement behaviors. Open-ended comments included positive benefits such as: help with remembering the plan for care, coordinating care with other doctors, decreasing stress of care giving, improving efficiency of visits, and supporting patients from a geographical distance. They also offered suggestions for improving electronic portal and note experience for care partners such as having a separate log on for care partners; having doctors avoid judgmental language in their notes; and the ability to prompt needed medical care for patients. DISCUSSION: Care partners value electronic access to patients' health information even more than patients. The majority of care partners were family members, whose feedback is important for improving portal design that effectively engages these care team members. PRACTICAL VALUE: Patient care in the time of COVID-19 increasingly requires social distancing which may place additional burden on care partners supporting vulnerable patients. Access to patient notes may promote quality of care by keeping care partners informed, and care partner's input should be used to optimize portal design and electronic access to patient information.

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

More scanning, but not zooming, is associated with diagnostic accuracy in evaluating digital breast pathology slides.

Diagnoses of medical images can invite strikingly diverse strategies for image navigation and visual search. In computed tomography screening for lung nodules, distinct strategies, termed scanning and drilling, relate to both radiologists' clinical experience and accuracy in lesion detection. Here, we examined associations between search patterns and accuracy for pathologists (N = 92) interpreting a diverse set of breast biopsy images. While changes in depth in volumetric images reveal new structures through movement in the z-plane, in digital pathology changes in depth are associated with increased magnification. Thus, "drilling" in radiology may be more appropriately termed "zooming" in pathology. We monitored eye-movements and navigation through digital pathology slides to derive metrics of how quickly the pathologists moved through XY (scanning) and Z (zooming) space. Prior research on eye-movements in depth has categorized clinicians as either "scanners" or "drillers." In contrast, we found that there was no reliable association between a clinician's tendency to scan or zoom while examining digital pathology slides. Thus, in the current work we treated scanning and zooming as continuous predictors rather than categorizing as either a "scanner" or "zoomer." In contrast to prior work in volumetric chest images, we found significant associations between accuracy and scanning rate but not zooming rate. These findings suggest fundamental differences in the relative value of information types and review behaviors across two image formats. Our data suggest that pathologists gather critical information by scanning on a given plane of depth, whereas radiologists drill through depth to interrogate critical features.

Histopathologic synoptic reporting of invasive melanoma: How reliable are the data?

BACKGROUND: Synoptic reporting is recommended by many guideline committees to encourage the thorough histologic documentation necessary for optimal management of patients with melanoma. METHODS: One hundred fifty-one pathologists from 40 US states interpreted 41 invasive melanoma cases. For each synoptic reporting factor, the authors identified cases with "complete agreement" (all participants recorded the same value) versus any disagreement. Pairwise agreement was calculated for each case as the proportion of pairs of responses that agreed, where paired responses were generated by the comparison of each reviewer's response with all others. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among all reviewers for 22 of the 41 cases (54%) on Breslow thickness dichotomized at 0.8 mm, with pairwise agreement ranging from 49% to 100% across the 41 cases. There was complete agreement for "no ulceration" in 24 of the 41 cases (59%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 42% to 100%. Tumor transected at base had complete agreement for 26 of the 41 cases (63%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 31% to 100%. Mitotic rate, categorized as 0/mm2 , 1/mm2 , or 2/mm2 , had complete agreement for 17 of the 41 cases (41%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 36% to 100%. Regression saw complete agreement for 14 of 41 cases (34%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 40% to 100%. Lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and microscopic satellites were rarely reported as present. Respectively, these prognostic factors had complete agreement for 32 (78%), 37 (90%), and 18 (44%) of the 41 cases, and the ranges of pairwise agreement were 47% to 100%, 70% to 100%, and 53% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings alert pathologists and clinicians to the problem of interobserver variability in recording critical prognostic factors. LAY SUMMARY: This study addresses variability in the assessment and reporting of critical characteristics of invasive melanomas that are used by clinicians to guide patient care. The authors characterize the diagnostic variability among pathologists and their reporting methods in light of recently updated national guidelines. Results demonstrate considerable variability in the diagnostic reporting of melanoma with regard to the following: Breslow thickness, mitotic rate, ulceration, regression, and microscopic satellites. This work serves to alert pathologists and clinicians to the existence of variability in reporting these prognostic factors.

Terminology for melanocytic skin lesions and the MPATH-Dx classification schema: A survey of dermatopathologists.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic terms used in histopathology reports of cutaneous melanocytic lesions are not standardized. We describe dermatopathologists' views regarding diverse diagnostic terminology and the utility of the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) for categorizing melanocytic lesions. METHODS: July 2018-2019 survey of board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists with experience interpreting melanocytic lesions. RESULTS: Among 160 participants, 99% reported witnessing different terminology being used for the same melanocytic lesion. Most viewed diverse terminology as confusing to primary care physicians (98%), frustrating to pathologists (83%), requiring more of their time as a consultant (64%), and providing necessary clinical information (52%). Most perceived that adoption of the MPATH-Dx would: improve communication with other pathologists and treating physicians (87%), generally be a change for the better (80%), improve patient care (79%), be acceptable to clinical colleagues (68%), save time in pathology report documentation (53%), and protect from malpractice (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Most dermatopathologists view diverse terminology as contributing to miscommunication with clinicians and patients, adversely impacting patient care. They view the MPATH-Dx as a promising tool to standardize terminology and improve communication. The MPATH-Dx may be a useful supplement to conventional pathology reports. Further revision and refinement are necessary for widespread clinical use.

Pathology Trainees' Experience and Attitudes on Use of Digital Whole Slide Images.

Digital whole slide images are Food and Drug Administration approved for clinical diagnostic use in pathology; however, integration is nascent. Trainees from 9 pathology training programs completed an online survey to ascertain attitudes toward and experiences with whole slide images for pathological interpretations. Respondents (n = 76) reported attending 63 unique medical schools (45 United States, 18 international). While 63% reported medical school exposure to whole slide images, most reported ≤ 5 hours. Those who began training more recently were more likely to report at least some exposure to digital whole slide image training in medical school compared to those who began training earlier: 75% of respondents beginning training in 2017 or 2018 reported exposure to whole slide images compared to 54% for trainees beginning earlier. Trainees exposed to whole slide images in medical school were more likely to agree they were comfortable using whole slide images for interpretation compared to those not exposed (29% vs 12%; P = .06). Most trainees agreed that accurate diagnoses can be made using whole slide images for primary diagnosis (92%; 95% CI: 86-98) and that whole slide images are useful for obtaining second opinions (93%; 95% CI: 88-99). Trainees reporting whole slide image experience during training, compared to those with no experience, were more likely to agree they would use whole slide images in 5 years for primary diagnosis (64% vs 50%; P = .3) and second opinions (86% vs 76%; P = .4). In conclusion, although exposure to whole slide images in medical school has increased, overall exposure is limited. Positive attitudes toward future whole slide image diagnostic use were associated with exposure to this technology during medical training. Curricular integration may promote adoption.

Malpractice and Patient Safety Concerns.

OBJECTIVES: "Assurance behaviors," a type of defensive medicine, involve physicians' utilization of additional patient services to avoid adverse legal outcomes. We aim to compare the use of clinical behaviors (such as ordering additional tests, services, and consultations) due to malpractice concerns with the same behaviors due to patient safety concerns. METHODS: A national sample of dermatopathologists (n = 160) completed an online survey. RESULTS: Participants reported using one or more of five clinical behaviors due to concerns about medical malpractice (95%) and patient safety (99%). Self-reported use of clinical behaviors due to malpractice concerns and patient safety concerns was compared, including ordering additional immunohistochemistry/molecular tests (71% vs 90%, respectively, P < .0001), recommending additional surgical sampling (78% vs 91%, P < .0001), requesting additional slides (81% vs 95%, P < .0001), obtaining second reviews (78% vs 91%, P < .0001), and adding caveats into reports regarding lesion difficulty (85% vs 89%, P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Dermatopathologists use many clinical behaviors both as assurance behaviors and due to patient safety concerns, with a higher proportion reporting patient safety concerns as a motivation for specific behaviors.

Correction: OpenNotes After 7 Years: Patient Experiences With Ongoing Access to Their Clinicians' Outpatient Visit Notes.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/13876.].

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports.

Importance: Many patients presently have access to their pathologic test result reports via online patient portals, yet little is known about pathologists' perspective on this topic. Objective: To examine dermatopathologists' experience and perceptions of patient online access to pathology reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey of 160 dermatopathologists currently practicing in the United States who are board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology was conducted between July 15, 2018, and September 23, 2019. Those who reported interpreting skin biopsies of melanocytic lesions within the previous year and expected to continue interpreting them for the next 2 years were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical characteristics, experiences with patient online access to pathologic test result reports, potential behaviors and reactions to patient online access to those reports, and effects on patients who read their pathologic test result reports online. Results: Of the 160 participating dermatopathologists from the 226 eligible for participation (71% response rate), 107 were men (67%); mean (SD) age was 49 (9.7) years (range, 34-77 years). Ninety-one participants (57%) reported that patients have contacted them directly about pathologic test reports they had written. Some participants noted that they would decrease their use of abbreviations and/or specialized terminology (57 [36%]), change the way they describe lesions suspicious for cancer (29 [18%]), and need specialized training in communicating with patients (39 [24%]) if patients were reading their reports. Most respondents perceived that patient understanding would increase (97 [61%]) and the quality of patient-physician communication would increase (98 [61%]) owing to the availability of online reports. Slightly higher proportions perceived increased patient worry (114 [71%]) and confusion (116 [73%]). However, on balance, most participants (114 [71%]) agreed that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea. Conclusions and Relevance: Dermatopathologists in this survey study perceived both positive and negative consequences of patient online access to pathologic test result reports written by the respondents. Most participants believe that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea; however, they also report concerns about patient worry and confusion increasing as a result. Further research regarding best practices and the effect on both patients and clinicians is warranted.

Eye tracking reveals expertise-related differences in the time-course of medical image inspection and diagnosis.

Purpose: Physicians' eye movements provide insights into relative reliance on different visual features during medical image review and diagnosis. Current theories posit that increasing expertise is associated with relatively holistic viewing strategies activated early in the image viewing experience. This study examined whether early image viewing behavior is associated with experience level and diagnostic accuracy when pathologists and trainees interpreted breast biopsies. Approach: Ninety-two residents in training and experienced pathologists at nine major U.S. medical centers interpreted digitized whole slide images of breast biopsy cases while eye movements were monitored. The breadth of visual attention and frequency and duration of eye fixations on critical image regions were recorded. We dissociated eye movements occurring early during initial viewing (prior to first zoom) versus later viewing, examining seven viewing behaviors of interest. Results: Residents and faculty pathologists were similarly likely to detect critical image regions during early image viewing, but faculty members showed more and longer duration eye fixations in these regions. Among pathology residents, year of residency predicted increasingly higher odds of fixating on critical image regions during early viewing. No viewing behavior was significantly associated with diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: Results suggest early detection and recognition of critical image features by experienced pathologists, with relatively directed and efficient search behavior. The results also suggest that the immediate distribution of eye movements over medical images warrants further exploration as a potential metric for the objective monitoring and evaluation of progress during medical training.