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.

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.

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.

Factors associated with use of immunohistochemical markers in the histopathological diagnosis of cutaneous melanocytic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Melanocytic tumors are often challenging and constitute almost one in four skin biopsies. Immunohistochemical (IHC) studies may assist diagnosis; however, indications for their use are not standardized. METHODS: A test set of 240 skin biopsies of melanocytic tumors was examined by 187 pathologists from 10 US states, interpreting 48 cases in Phase I and either 36 or 48 cases in Phase II. Participant and diagnosis characteristics were compared between those who reported they would have ordered, or who would have not ordered IHC on individual cases. Intraobserver analysis examined consistency in the intent to order when pathologists interpreted the same cases on two occasions. RESULTS: Of 187 participants interpreting 48 cases each, 21 (11%) did not request IHC tests for any case, 85 (45%) requested testing for 1 to 6 cases, and 81 (43%) requested testing for ≥6 cases. Of 240 cases, 229 had at least one participant requesting testing. Only 2 out of 240 cases had more than 50% of participants requesting testing. Increased utilization of testing was associated with younger age of pathologist, board-certification in dermatopathology, low confidence in diagnosis, and lesions in intermediate MPATH-Dx classes 2 to 4. The median intraobserver concordance for requesting tests among 72 participants interpreting the same 48 cases in Phases I and II was 81% (IQR 73%-90%) and the median Kappa statistic was 0.20 (IQR 0.00, 0.39). CONCLUSION: Substantial variability exists among pathologists in utilizing IHC.

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.

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After-Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety-net settings. DESIGN: A mixed methods study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. METHODS: Patients read their own most recent clinic note and After-Visit Summary, then completed a brief survey followed by a focus group discussion (3 groups in a large general medicine teaching clinic and 1 in an HIV/AIDS clinic) about their perceptions of the clinic note and After-Visit Summary. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients participated; 70% were male, 41% were Black, 48% were unemployed or disabled, 56% reported fair/poor health, and 37% had accessed the electronic patient portal. A majority of patients felt their note content was useful (89%); a minority reported that their notes were not accurate (19%), had too much medical jargon (29%), or were too long (26%). Themes identified from the discussions included reliance on the provider to explain confusing content; a desire for more rather than less detail; and perceived inaccuracies, particularly in heavily templated notes. In each focus group, one or more portal users were enthusiastically willing to teach other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of focus group participants at this safety-net site had not accessed the electronic patient portal, but those who had were willing to promote the portal benefits and assist others. Patients identified specific opportunities to improve clinic notes and After-Visit Summaries.

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.

Variation among pathologists' treatment suggestions for melanocytic lesions: A survey of pathologists.

BACKGROUND: The extent of variability in treatment suggestions for melanocytic lesions made by pathologists is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated how often pathologists rendered suggestions, reasons for providing suggestions, and concordance with national guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of pathologists. Data included physician characteristics, experience, and treatment recommendation practices. RESULTS: Of 301 pathologists, 207 (69%) from 10 states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington) enrolled. In all, 15% and 7% reported never and always including suggestions, respectively. Reasons for offering suggestions included improved care (79%), clarification (68%), and legal liability (39%). Reasons for not offering suggestions included referring physician preference (48%), lack of clinical information (44%), and expertise (29%). Training and caseload were associated with offering suggestions (P < .05). Physician suggestions were most consistent for mild/moderate dysplastic nevi and melanoma. For melanoma in situ, 18 (9%) and 32 (15%) pathologists made suggestions that undertreated or overtreated lesions based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, respectively. For invasive melanoma, 14 (7%) pathologists made treatment suggestions that undertreated lesions based on NCCN guidelines. LIMITATIONS: Treatment suggestions were self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists made recommendations ranging in consistency. These findings may inform efforts to reduce treatment variability and optimize patterns of care delivery for patients.

The utilization of spitz-related nomenclature in the histological interpretation of cutaneous melanocytic lesions by practicing pathologists: results from the M-Path study.

BACKGROUND: Spitz nevi, atypical Spitz tumors and spitzoid melanomas ('spitzoid lesions') represent controversial and poorly understood cutaneous melanocytic lesions that are difficult to diagnose histologically. It is unknown how these terms are used by pathologists. METHODS: We describe use of Spitz-related terminology using data from the Melanoma Pathology (M-Path) study database comprising pathologists' interpretations of biopsy slides, a nation-wide study evaluating practicing US pathologists' (N = 187) diagnoses of melanocytic lesions (8976 independent diagnostic assessments on 240 total test cases, with 1 slide per case). RESULTS: Most pathologists (90%) used the Spitz-related terminology. However, significant variation exists in which specific lesions were diagnosed as spitzoid and in the corresponding treatment recommendations. Recommendations ranged from 'no further treatment' to 'wide excision of 10 mm or greater' with no category capturing more than 50% of responses. For spitzoid melanoma diagnoses, 90% of pathologists recommended excision with ≥10 mm margin. Pathologists report less confidence in diagnosing these lesions compared with other melanocytic proliferations and are more likely to request second opinions and additional clinical information (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Spitzoid lesions are often not classified in any standardized way, evoke uncertainty in diagnosis by pathologists, and elicit variability in treatment recommendations.

How concerns and experiences with medical malpractice affect dermatopathologists' perceptions of their diagnostic practices when interpreting cutaneous melanocytic lesions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify characteristics associated with past malpractice lawsuits and how malpractice concerns may affect interpretive practices. METHODS: We surveyed 207 of 301 (68.8%) eligible dermatopathologists who interpret melanocytic skin lesions in 10 states. The survey assessed dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical practice characteristics, perceptions of how medical malpractice concerns could influence their interpretive practices, and past malpractice lawsuits. RESULTS: Of dermatopathologists, 33% reported past malpractice experiences. Factors associated with being sued included older age (57 vs 48 years, P < .001), lack of board certification or fellowship training in dermatopathology (76.5% vs 53.2%, P = .001), and greater number of years interpreting melanocytic lesions (>20 years: 52.9% vs 20.1%, P < .001). Of participants, 64% reported being moderately or extremely confident in their melanocytic interpretations. Although most dermatopathologists believed that malpractice concerns increased their likelihood of ordering specialized pathology tests, obtaining recuts, and seeking a second opinion, none of these practices were associated with past malpractice. Most dermatopathologists reported concerns about potential harms to patients that may result from their assessments of melanocytic lesions. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include lack of validation of and details about the malpractice suits experienced by participating dermatopathologists. In addition, the study assessed perceptions of practice rather than actual practices that might be associated with malpractice incidents. CONCLUSIONS: Most dermatopathologists reported apprehension about how malpractice affects their clinical practice and are concerned about patient safety irrespective of whether they had actually experienced a medical malpractice suit.

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.

Achieving consensus for the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic lesions: use of the modified Delphi method.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the sophisticated nature of coming to consensus when diagnosing complex melanocytic lesions among a panel of experienced dermatopathologists. METHODS: A total of 240 melanocytic lesions were assessed independently by three experienced dermatopathologists with their diagnoses mapped into one of five Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-DX) categories: (I) nevus/mild atypia, (II) moderate atypia, (III) severe atypia/melanoma in situ, (IV) T1a invasive melanoma and (V) ≥ T1b invasive melanoma. The dermatopathologists then discussed the cases, using a modified Delphi method to facilitated consensus building for cases with discordant diagnoses. RESULTS: For most cases, a majority of interpretations (two or three of three) agreed with the consensus diagnosis in 95% of Category I, 64% of Category II, 84% of Category III, 88% for Category IV and 100% of Category V cases. Disagreements were typically due to diagnostic threshold differences (64.5%), differing contents on slides even though the slides were sequential cuts (18.5%), and missed findings (15.3%). Disagreements were resolved via discussion of histopathologic features and their significance while reviewing the slides using a multi-headed microscope, considering treatment recommendations, citing existing literature, reviewing additional slides for a case, and choosing a provisional/borderline diagnosis to capture diverse opinions. All experienced pathologists participating in this study reported that the process of coming to consensus was challenging for borderline cases and may have represented compromise rather than consensus. They also reported the process changed their approaches to diagnosing complex melanocytic lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The most frequent reason for disagreement of experienced dermatopathologists was differences in diagnostic thresholds related to observer viewpoints. A range of approaches was needed to come to consensus, and this may guide pathology groups who do not currently hold consensus conferences.

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.

Understanding diagnostic variability in breast pathology: lessons learned from an expert consensus review panel.

AIMS: To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. METHODS AND RESULTS: In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists' opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.

Variability in mitotic figures in serial sections of thin melanomas.

BACKGROUND: T1 melanoma staging is significantly affected by tissue sampling approaches, which have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize presence of mitotic figures across a minimum of 5 sequential sections of T1 melanomas. METHODS: A cohort of T1 melanomas with either 5 (single section per slide) or 10 (2 sections per slide) sequential sections (5-µm thickness) per case were prepared and examined for mitotic figures. RESULTS: In all, 44 of 82 T1 melanomas (54%) were classified as T1b. The number of sections with a mitotic figure present ranged from only 1 of 5 sections (n = 5 of 44 cases, 11.4%) to all 5 (n = 20 of 44 cases, 45.5%). A sequential approach versus a nonsequential approach did not appear to matter. LIMITATION: Cases were taken from a single pathology practice in the Pacific Northwest, which may not generalize to other populations in the United States. CONCLUSION: The variation in the presence of mitotic figures within sequential sections supports reviewing 3 to 5 sections to fulfill American Joint Committee on Cancer recommendations. The prognostic significance of a T1b melanoma with a rare mitotic figure on a single section versus a T1b melanoma with mitotic figures on multiple sections deserves more attention to see if further subclassification is possible or even necessary.

The MPATH-Dx reporting schema for melanocytic proliferations and melanoma.

BACKGROUND: The histologic diagnosis of melanoma and nevi can be subject to discordance and errors, potentially leading to inappropriate treatment and harm. Diagnostic terminology is not standardized, creating confusion for providers and patients and challenges for investigators. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the development of a pathology reporting form for more precise research on melanoma and a diagnostic-treatment mapping tool for improved patient care and consistency in treatment. METHODS: Three dermatopathologists independently reviewed melanocytic lesions randomly selected from a dermatopathology database. Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) reporting schema evolved from iterative case review and form revision. RESULTS: Differences in diagnostic thresholds, interpretation, and nomenclature contributed to development of the MPATH-Dx histology reporting form, which groups lesions by similarities in histogenesis and degrees of atypia. Because preliminary results indicate greater agreement regarding suggested treatments than for specific diagnoses, the diverse terminologies of the MPATH-Dx histology reporting form were stratified by commonalities of treatments in the MPATH-Dx diagnostic-treatment mapping scheme. LIMITATIONS: Without transformative advances in diagnostic paradigms, the interpretation of melanocytic lesions frequently remains subjective. CONCLUSIONS: The MPATH-Dx diagnostic-treatment mapping scheme could diminish confusion for those receiving reports by categorizing diverse nomenclature into a hierarchy stratified by suggested management interventions.

Development of a diagnostic test set to assess agreement in breast pathology: practical application of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS).

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic test sets are a valuable research tool that contributes importantly to the validity and reliability of studies that assess agreement in breast pathology. In order to fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of any agreement and reliability study, however, the methods should be fully reported. In this paper we provide a step-by-step description of the methods used to create four complex test sets for a study of diagnostic agreement among pathologists interpreting breast biopsy specimens. We use the newly developed Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) as a basis to report these methods. METHODS: Breast tissue biopsies were selected from the National Cancer Institute-funded Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites. We used a random sampling stratified according to woman's age (40-49 vs. ≥50), parenchymal breast density (low vs. high) and interpretation of the original pathologist. A 3-member panel of expert breast pathologists first independently interpreted each case using five primary diagnostic categories (non-proliferative changes, proliferative changes without atypia, atypical ductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ, and invasive carcinoma). When the experts did not unanimously agree on a case diagnosis a modified Delphi method was used to determine the reference standard consensus diagnosis. The final test cases were stratified and randomly assigned into one of four unique test sets. CONCLUSIONS: We found GRRAS recommendations to be very useful in reporting diagnostic test set development and recommend inclusion of two additional criteria: 1) characterizing the study population and 2) describing the methods for reference diagnosis, when applicable.

Diagnostic error, uncertainty, and overdiagnosis in melanoma.

Diagnostic error can be defined as deviation from a gold standard diagnosis, typically defined in terms of expert opinion, although sometimes in terms of unexpected events that might occur in follow-up (such as progression and death from disease). Although diagnostic error does exist for melanoma, deviations from gold standard diagnosis, certainly among appropriately trained and experienced practitioners, are likely to be the result of uncertainty and lack of specific criteria, and differences of opinion, rather than lack of diagnostic skills. In this review, the concept of diagnostic error will be considered in relation to diagnostic uncertainty, and the concept of overdiagnosis in melanoma will be presented and discussed.

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.