Dataset Information

Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Research examining the role of second opinions in pathology for diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is limited. OBJECTIVE:To assess current laboratory policies, clinical use of second opinions, and pathologists' perceptions of second opinions for melanocytic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Cross-sectional data collected from 207 pathologists in 10 US states who diagnose melanocytic lesions. The web-based survey ascertained pathologists' professional information, laboratory second opinion policy, use of second opinions, and perceptions of second opinion value for melanocytic lesions. RESULTS:Laboratory policies required second opinions for 31% of pathologists and most commonly required for melanoma in situ (26%) and invasive melanoma (30%). In practice, most pathologists reported requesting second opinions for melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential (85%) and atypical Spitzoid lesions (88%). Most pathologists perceived that second opinions increased interpretive accuracy (78%) and protected them from malpractice lawsuits (62%). CONCLUSION:Use of second opinions in clinical practice is greater than that required by laboratory policies, especially for melanocytic tumors of uncertain malignant potential and atypical Spitzoid lesions. Quality of care in surgical interventions for atypical melanocytic proliferations critically depends on the accuracy of diagnosis in pathology reporting. Future research should examine the extent to which second opinions improve accuracy of melanocytic lesion diagnosis.

SUBMITTER: Geller BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6483077 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

Geller Berta M BM Frederick Paul D PD Knezevich Stevan R SR Lott Jason P JP Nelson Heidi D HD Titus Linda J LJ Carney Patricia A PA Tosteson Anna N A ANA Onega Tracy L TL Barnhill Raymond L RL Weinstock Martin A MA Elder David E DE Piepkorn Michael W MW Elmore Joann G JG

Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] 20180201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Research examining the role of second opinions in pathology for diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is limited.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess current laboratory policies, clinical use of second opinions, and pathologists' perceptions of second opinions for melanocytic lesions.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Cross-sectional data collected from 207 pathologists in 10 US states who diagnose melanocytic lesions. The web-based survey ascertained pathologists' professional information, labo ...[more]

PMID: 28858936

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ImportanceHistopathologic criteria have limited diagnostic reliability for a range of cutaneous melanocytic lesions.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of second-opinion strategies by general pathologists and dermatopathologists with the overall reliability of diagnosis of difficult melanocytic lesions.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study used samples from the Melanoma Pathology Study, which comprises 240 melanocytic lesion samples selected from a dermatopathology laboratory in Bellevue, Washington, and represents the full spectrum of lesions from common nevi to invasive melanoma. Five sets of 48 samples were evaluated independently by 187 US pathologists from July 15, 2013, through May 23, 2016. Data analysis was performed from April 2016 through November 2017.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of diagnosis, defined as concordance with an expert consensus diagnosis of 3 experienced pathologists, was assessed after applying 10 different second-opinion strategies.ResultsAmong the 187 US pathologists examining the 24 lesion samples, 113 were general pathologists (65 men [57.5%]; mean age at survey, 53.7 years [range, 33.0-79.0 years]) and 74 were dermatopathologists (49 men [66.2%]; mean age at survey, 46.4 years [range, 33.0-77.0 years]). Among the 8976 initial case interpretations, physicians desired second opinions for 3899 (43.4%), most often for interpretation of severely dysplastic nevi. The overall misclassification rate was highest when interpretations did not include second opinions and initial reviewers were all general pathologists lacking subspecialty training (52.8%; 95% CI, 51.3%-54.3%). When considering different second opinion strategies, the misclassification of melanocytic lesions was lowest when the first, second, and third consulting reviewers were subspecialty-trained dermatopathologists and when all lesions were subject to second opinions (36.7%; 95% CI, 33.1%-40.7%). When the second opinion strategies were compared with single interpretations without second opinions, the reductions in misclassification rates for some of the strategies were statistically significant, but none of the strategies eliminated diagnostic misclassification. Melanocytic lesions in the middle of the diagnostic spectrum had the highest misclassification rates (eg, moderately or severely dysplastic nevus, Spitz nevus, melanoma in situ, and pathologic stage [p]T1a invasive melanoma). Variability of in situ and thin invasive melanoma was relatively intractable to all examined strategies.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that second opinions rendered by dermatopathologists improve reliability of melanocytic lesion diagnosis. However, discordance among pathologists remained high.

Project description:Importance:Use of digital whole-slide imaging (WSI) for dermatopathology in general has been noted to be similar to traditional microscopy (TM); however, concern has been noted that WSI is inferior for interpretation of melanocytic lesions. Since approximately 1 of every 4 skin biopsies is of a melanocytic lesion, the use of WSI requires verification before use in clinical practice. Objective:To compare pathologists' accuracy and reproducibility in diagnosing melanocytic lesions using Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) categories when analyzing by TM vs WSI. Design, Setting, and Participants:A total of 87 pathologists in community-based and academic settings from 10 US states were randomized with stratification based on clinical experience to interpret in TM format 180 skin biopsy cases of melanocytic lesions, including 90 invasive melanoma, divided into 5 sets of 36 cases (phase 1). The pathologists were then randomized via stratified permuted block randomization with block size 2 to interpret cases in either TM (n?=?46) or WSI format (n?=?41), with each pathologist interpreting the same 36 cases on 2 separate occasions (phase 2). Diagnoses were categorized as MPATH-Dx categories I through V, with I indicating the least severe and V the most severe. Main Outcomes and Measures:Accuracy with respect to a consensus reference diagnosis and the reproducibility of repeated interpretations of the same cases. Results:Of the 87 pathologists in the study, 46% (40) were women and the mean (SD) age was 50.7 (10.2) years. Except for class III melanocytic lesions, the diagnostic categories showed no significant differences in diagnostic accuracy between TM and WSI interpretation. Discordance was lower among class III lesions for the TM interpretation arm (51%; 95% CI, 46%-57%) than for the WSI arm (61%; 95% CI, 53%-69%) (P?=?.05). This difference is likely to have clinical significance, because 6% of TM vs 11% of WSI class III lesions were interpreted as invasive melanoma. Reproducibility was similar between the traditional and digital formats overall (66.4%; 95% CI, 63.3%-69.3%; and 62.7%; 95% CI, 59.5%-65.7%, respectively), and for all classes, although class III showed a nonsignificant lower intraobserver agreement for digital. Significantly more mitotic figures were detected with TM compared with WSI: mean (SD) TM, 6.72 (2.89); WSI, 5.84 (2.56); P?=?.002. Conclusions and Relevance:Interpretive accuracy for melanocytic lesions was similar for WSI and TM slides except for class III lesions. We found no clinically meaningful differences in reproducibility for any of the diagnostic classes.

Project description:ImportanceDespite 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresAgreement 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:BackgroundSecond medical opinions have become commonplace and even mandatory in some health-care systems, as variations in diagnosis, treatment or prognosis may emerge among physicians.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether physicians' judgment is affected by another medical opinion given to a patient.DesignOrthopedic surgeons and neurologists filled out questionnaires presenting eight hypothetical clinical scenarios with suggested treatments. One group of physicians (in each specialty) was told what the other physician's opinion was (study group), and the other group was not told what it was (control group).ParticipantsA convenience sample of 332 physicians in Israel: 172 orthopedic surgeons (45.9% of their population) and 160 neurologists (64.0% of their population).MeasurementsScoring was by choice of less or more interventional treatment in the scenarios. We used ?(2) tests and repeated measures ANOVA to compare these scores between the two groups. We also fitted a cumulative ordinal regression to account for the dependence within each physician's responses.ResultsOrthopedic surgeons in the study group chose a more interventionist treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention than those in the control group [F (1, 170)?=4.6, p=0.03; OR=1.437, 95% CI 1.115-1.852]. Evaluating this effect separately in each scenario showed that in four out of the eight scenarios, they chose a more interventional treatment when the other physician suggested an intervention (scenario 1, p=0.039; scenario 2, p<0.001; scenario 3, p=0.033; scenario 6, p<0.001). These effects were insignificant among the neurologists [F (1,158)?=0.44, p=0.51; OR=1.087, 95% CI 0.811-1.458]. In both specialties there were no differences in responses by level of clinical experience [orthopedic surgeons: F (2, 166)?=0.752, p=0.473; neurologists: F (2,154)?=1.951, p=0.146].ConclusionsThe exploratory survey showed that in some cases physicians' judgments may be affected by other physicians' opinions, but unaffected in other cases. Weighing previous opinions may yield a more informed clinical decision, yet physicians may be unintentionally influenced by previous opinions. Second opinion has the potential to improve the clinical decision-making processes, and mechanisms are needed to reconcile discrepant opinions.

Project description:Early diagnosis when melanoma is still small and thin is essential for improving mortality and morbidity. However, the diagnosis of small size melanoma might be particularly difficult, not only clinically but also dermoscopically. This study aimed to define clinical and dermatoscopic parameters in the diagnosis of suspicious pigmented cutaneous lesions with a diameter of ≤ 6mm and determine the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as the accuracy of each clinical and dermatoscopic criterion. This is a transversal, descriptive and analytical study of dermatoscopic analysis with the gold standard being the pathologic examination obtained from the excisional biopsy of suspicious melanocytic lesions with a diameter of ≤ 6mm. Trunk and limb lesion data from a public health service and a private clinic were prospectively collected from 2011 to 2017 by a unique observer. In total, 481 melanocytic lesions were included, with 73.8% being ≤ 4mm in diameter. Overall, 123 were diagnosed as melanoma, 56.0% in situ and 22.0% as thin melanomas (Breslow index 0.1 to 1.0mm). Melanoma presented symmetry in 53.7% of cases, regular borders in 54.5% and a single color in 60.2%. Regarding evolution, 13.8% of melanomas versus 10.9% of benign lesions (p = 0.116) were new by comparing photos from baseline with photos from the follow-up. The majority of melanomas (65%) were found on the limbs compared to 37.2% of the benign lesions at this location (p<0.001). A multiple logistic regression model adjusted for age, gender and location was created. The independent variables associated with the diagnosis of melanoma ≤ 6mm, adjusted for age, gender and location, were: streaks (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 2.5; 95% CI 1.3-4.7; p = 0.006), and the presence of a structureless area (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.0, p = 0.011). Conversely, a symmetric typical pigment network was a protection variable (aOR 0.4, 95% 0.7-0.9, p = 0.040). In conclusion, dermatoscopic criteria have been identified which help to diagnose cases of small size melanoma. These include streaks and structureless areas that can be taken, particularly in consideration for the diagnosis of this subset of small difficult melanomas.

Dataset Information

Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

Publications

Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets