Dataset Information

Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study.

ABSTRACT: Objective To quantify the accuracy and reproducibility of pathologists' diagnoses of melanocytic skin lesions.Design Observer accuracy and reproducibility study.Setting 10 US states.Participants Skin biopsy cases (n=240), grouped into sets of 36 or 48. Pathologists from 10 US states were randomized to independently interpret the same set on two occasions (phases 1 and 2), at least eight months apart.Main outcome measures Pathologists' interpretations were condensed into five classes: I (eg, nevus or mild atypia); II (eg, moderate atypia); III (eg, severe atypia or melanoma in situ); IV (eg, pathologic stage T1a (pT1a) early invasive melanoma); and V (eg, ≥pT1b invasive melanoma). Reproducibility was assessed by intraobserver and interobserver concordance rates, and accuracy by concordance with three reference diagnoses.Results In phase 1, 187 pathologists completed 8976 independent case interpretations resulting in an average of 10 (SD 4) different diagnostic terms applied to each case. Among pathologists interpreting the same cases in both phases, when pathologists diagnosed a case as class I or class V during phase 1, they gave the same diagnosis in phase 2 for the majority of cases (class I 76.7%; class V 82.6%). However, the intraobserver reproducibility was lower for cases interpreted as class II (35.2%), class III (59.5%), and class IV (63.2%). Average interobserver concordance rates were lower, but with similar trends. Accuracy using a consensus diagnosis of experienced pathologists as reference varied by class: I, 92% (95% confidence interval 90% to 94%); II, 25% (22% to 28%); III, 40% (37% to 44%); IV, 43% (39% to 46%); and V, 72% (69% to 75%). It is estimated that at a population level, 82.8% (81.0% to 84.5%) of melanocytic skin biopsy diagnoses would have their diagnosis verified if reviewed by a consensus reference panel of experienced pathologists, with 8.0% (6.2% to 9.9%) of cases overinterpreted by the initial pathologist and 9.2% (8.8% to 9.6%) underinterpreted.Conclusion Diagnoses spanning moderately dysplastic nevi to early stage invasive melanoma were neither reproducible nor accurate in this large study of pathologists in the USA. Efforts to improve clinical practice should include using a standardized classification system, acknowledging uncertainty in pathology reports, and developing tools such as molecular markers to support pathologists' visual assessments.

SUBMITTER: Elmore JG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5485913 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePopulation-based information on the distribution of histologic diagnoses associated with skin biopsies is unknown. Electronic medical records (EMRs) enable automated extraction of pathology report data to improve our epidemiologic understanding of skin biopsy outcomes, specifically those of melanocytic origin.ObjectiveTo determine population-based frequencies and distribution of histologically confirmed melanocytic lesions.Design, setting, and participantsA natural language processing (NLP)-based analysis of EMR pathology reports of adult patients who underwent skin biopsies at a large integrated health care delivery system in the US Pacific Northwest from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2012.ExposuresSkin biopsy procedure.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was histopathologic diagnosis, obtained using an NLP-based system to process EMR pathology reports. We determined the percentage of diagnoses classified as melanocytic vs nonmelanocytic lesions. Diagnoses classified as melanocytic were further subclassified using the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) reporting schema into the following categories: class I (nevi and other benign proliferations such as mildly dysplastic lesions typically requiring no further treatment), class II (moderately dysplastic and other low-risk lesions that may merit narrow reexcision with <5-mm margins), class III (eg, melanoma in situ and other higher-risk lesions warranting reexcision with 5-mm to 1-cm margins), and class IV/V (invasive melanoma requiring wide reexcision with ≥1-cm margins and potential adjunctive therapy). Health system cancer registry data were used to define the percentage of invasive melanoma cases within MPATH-Dx class IV (stage T1a) vs V (≥stage T1b).ResultsA total of 80 368 skin biopsies, performed on 47 529 patients, were examined. Nearly 1 in 4 skin biopsies were of melanocytic lesions (23%; n = 18 715), which were distributed according to MPATH-Dx categories as follows: class I, 83.1% (n = 15 558); class II, 8.3% (n = 1548); class III, 4.5% (n = 842); class IV, 2.2% (n = 405); and class V, 1.9% (n = 362).Conclusions and relevanceApproximately one-quarter of skin biopsies resulted in diagnoses of melanocytic proliferations. These data provide the first population-based estimates across the spectrum of melanocytic lesions ranging from benign through dysplastic to malignant. These results may serve as a foundation for future research seeking to understand the epidemiology of melanocytic proliferations and optimization of skin biopsy utilization.

Project description:Invasive lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common breast carcinoma (BC) subtype and is mainly driven by loss of E-cadherin expression. Correct classification of BC as ILC is important for patient treatment. This study assessed the degree of agreement among pathologists for the diagnosis of ILC. Two sets of hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative BCs were independently reviewed by participating pathologists. In set A (61 cases), participants were provided with hematoxylin/eosin (HE)-stained sections. In set B (62 cases), participants were provided with HE-stained sections and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry (IHC). Tumor characteristics were balanced. Participants classified specimens as non-lobular BC versus mixed BC versus ILC. Pairwise inter-observer agreement and agreement with a pre-defined reference diagnosis were determined with Cohen's kappa statistics. Subtype calls were correlated with molecular features, including CDH1/E-cadherin mutation status. Thirty-five pathologists completed both sets, providing 4,305 subtype calls. Pairwise inter-observer agreement was moderate in set A (median κ = 0.58, interquartile range [IQR]: 0.48-0.66) and substantial in set B (median κ = 0.75, IQR: 0.56-0.86, p < 0.001). Agreement with the reference diagnosis was substantial in set A (median κ = 0.67, IQR: 0.57-0.75) and almost perfect in set B (median κ = 0.86, IQR: 0.73-0.93, p < 0.001). The median frequency of CDH1/E-cadherin mutations in specimens classified as ILC was 65% in set A (IQR: 56-72%) and 73% in set B (IQR: 65-75%, p < 0.001). Cases with variable subtype calls included E-cadherin-positive ILCs harboring CDH1 missense mutations, and E-cadherin-negative ILCs with tubular elements and focal P-cadherin expression. ILCs with trabecular growth pattern were often misclassified as non-lobular BC in set A but not in set B. In conclusion, subtyping of BC as ILC achieves almost perfect agreement with a pre-defined reference standard, if assessment is supported by E-cadherin IHC. CDH1 missense mutations associated with preserved E-cadherin protein expression, E- to P-cadherin switching in ILC with tubular elements, and trabecular ILC were identified as potential sources of discordant classification.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionWe 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.

Dataset Information

Pathologists' diagnosis of invasive melanoma and melanocytic proliferations: observer accuracy and reproducibility study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets