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.

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.

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.

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.

Objectives

The impact of malpractice concerns on pathologists' use of defensive medicine and interpretations of melanocytic skin lesions (MSLs) is unknown.

Methods

A total of 207 pathologists interpreting MSLs responded to a survey about past involvement in malpractice litigation, influence of malpractice concerns on diagnosis, and use of assurance behaviors (defensive medicine) to alleviate malpractice concerns. Assurance behaviors included requesting second opinions, additional slides, additional sampling, and ordering specialized tests.

Results

Of the pathologists, 27.5% reported that malpractice concerns influenced them toward a more severe MSL diagnosis. Nearly all (95.2%) pathologists reported practicing at least one assurance behavior due to malpractice concerns, and this practice was associated with being influenced toward a more severe MSL diagnosis (odds ratio, 2.72; 95% confidence interval, 1.41-5.26).

Conclusions

One of four US skin pathologists upgrade MSL diagnosis due to malpractice concerns, and nearly all practice assurance behaviors. Assurance behaviors are associated with rendering a more severe MSL diagnosis.

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.

Importance

The recently updated American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) classification of cancer staging, the AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 8th edition (AJCC 8), includes revisions to definitions of T1a vs T1b or greater. The Melanoma Pathology Study database affords a comparison,of pathologists' concordance and reproducibility in the microstaging of melanoma according to both the existing 7th edition (AJCC 7) and the new AJCC 8.

Objective

To compare AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 to examine whether changes to the definitions of T1a and T1b or greater are associated with changes in concordance and reproducibility.

Design setting and participants

In this diagnostic study conducted as part of the national Melanoma Pathology Study across US states, 187 pathologists interpreting melanocytic skin lesions in practice completed 4342 independent case interpretations of 116 invasive melanoma cases. A consensus reference diagnosis and participating pathologists' interpretations were classified into the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis class IV (T1a) or class V ( T1b) using both the AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria.

Main outcomes and measures

Concordance with consensus reference diagnosis, interobserver reproducibility, and intraobserver reproducibility.

Results

For T1a diagnoses, participating pathologists' concordance with the consensus reference diagnosis increased from 44% (95% CI, 41%-48%) to 54% (95% CI, 51%-57%) using AJCC 7 and AJCC 8 criteria, respectively. The concordance for cases of T1b or greater increased from 72% (95% CI, 69%-75%) to 78% (95% CI, 75%-80%). Intraobserver reproducibility of diagnoses also improved, increasing from 59% (95% CI, 56%-63%) to 64% (95% CI, 62%-67%) for T1a invasive melanoma, and from 74% (95% CI, 71%-76%) to 77% (95% CI, 74%-79%) for T1b or greater invasive melanoma cases.

Conclusions and relevance

Melanoma staging in AJCC 8 shows greater reproducibility and higher concordance with a reference standard. Improved classification of invasive melanoma can be expected after implementation of AJCC 8, suggesting a positive impact on patients. However, despite improvement, concordance and reproducibility remain low.

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.

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.

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.