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.

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.

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.

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.

Pathologists' agreement on treatment suggestions for melanocytic skin lesions.

BACKGROUND: Although treatment guidelines exist for melanoma in situ and invasive melanoma, guidelines for other melanocytic skin lesions do not exist. OBJECTIVE: To examine pathologists' treatment suggestions for a broad spectrum of melanocytic skin lesions and compare them with existing guidelines. METHODS: Pathologists (N = 187) completed a survey and then provided diagnoses and treatment suggestions for 240 melanocytic skin lesions. Physician characteristics associated with treatment suggestions were evaluated with multivariable modeling. RESULTS: Treatment suggestions were concordant with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for the majority of cases interpreted as melanoma in situ (73%) and invasive melanoma (86%). Greater variability of treatment suggestions was seen for other lesion types without existing treatment guidelines. Characteristics associated with provision of treatment suggestions discordant with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were low caseloads (invasive melanoma), lack of fellowship training or board certification (melanoma in situ), and more than 10 years of experience (invasive melanoma and melanoma in situ). LIMITATIONS: Pathologists could not perform immunohistochemical staining or other diagnostic tests; only 1 glass side was provided per biopsy case. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists' treatment suggestions vary significantly for melanocytic lesions, with lower variability for lesion types with national guidelines. Results suggest the need for standardization of treatment guidelines for all melanocytic lesion types.