Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2024
Diagnostic discordance among histopathological reviewers of melanocytic lesions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hosler Gregory A, Goldberg Matthew S, Estrada Sarah I, O'Neil Brendan, Amin Sapna M, Plaza Jose A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Histopathological examination is adequate for the diagnosis of most cutaneous melanocytic neoplasms. However, there is a subset that is either difficult to definitively diagnose or would have diagnostic disagreement upon review by multiple dermatopathologists if a more exhaustive review was performed.
METHODS: Melanocytic lesions underwent an independent, blinded diagnostic histopathological review of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. Each lesion was reviewed by three to six dermatopathologists and categorized as benign, malignant, or unknown malignant potential (UMP). Diagnoses were grouped as concordant (all the same designation); opposing (received benign and malignant designations); majority (single designation with the highest number of diagnoses, no benign/malignant opposing designations); and non-definitive (equal number of non-opposing designations [i.e., benign/UMP or malignant/UMP]). Lesions with equivocal designations (concordant or majority UMP, opposing, majority, and non-definitive) were utilized in a patient treatment model of projected surgical treatment discrepancies.
RESULTS: In total, 3317 cases were reviewed, and 23.8% of lesions received equivocal diagnoses. Of these, 7.3% were majority benign, 4.8% were majority malignant, 2.7% were majority UMP, 0.5% were concordant UMP, 6.9% were opposing, and 1.6% were non-definitive. Patient treatment models of those with equivocal lesions (n = 788) revealed a potential of overall surgical treatment variations ranging from 18% to 72%, with the highest variation amongst lesions with opposing, non-definitive, or majority UMP (40%-72%) diagnoses.
CONCLUSION: Histopathologic review in this large cohort demonstrated substantial diagnostic variation, with 23.8% of cases receiving equivocal diagnoses. We identified diagnostic ambiguity even in lesions where a definitive diagnosis was previously rendered by a single real-world dermatopathologist. The combined clinical impact of diagnostic discordance or a final diagnosis of UMP is highlighted by high diagnosis-dependent treatment variation in the patient treatment model, which could be underreported in a real-world setting, where review by more than one to two dermatopathologists is relatively rare.
METHODS: Melanocytic lesions underwent an independent, blinded diagnostic histopathological review of hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections. Each lesion was reviewed by three to six dermatopathologists and categorized as benign, malignant, or unknown malignant potential (UMP). Diagnoses were grouped as concordant (all the same designation); opposing (received benign and malignant designations); majority (single designation with the highest number of diagnoses, no benign/malignant opposing designations); and non-definitive (equal number of non-opposing designations [i.e., benign/UMP or malignant/UMP]). Lesions with equivocal designations (concordant or majority UMP, opposing, majority, and non-definitive) were utilized in a patient treatment model of projected surgical treatment discrepancies.
RESULTS: In total, 3317 cases were reviewed, and 23.8% of lesions received equivocal diagnoses. Of these, 7.3% were majority benign, 4.8% were majority malignant, 2.7% were majority UMP, 0.5% were concordant UMP, 6.9% were opposing, and 1.6% were non-definitive. Patient treatment models of those with equivocal lesions (n = 788) revealed a potential of overall surgical treatment variations ranging from 18% to 72%, with the highest variation amongst lesions with opposing, non-definitive, or majority UMP (40%-72%) diagnoses.
CONCLUSION: Histopathologic review in this large cohort demonstrated substantial diagnostic variation, with 23.8% of cases receiving equivocal diagnoses. We identified diagnostic ambiguity even in lesions where a definitive diagnosis was previously rendered by a single real-world dermatopathologist. The combined clinical impact of diagnostic discordance or a final diagnosis of UMP is highlighted by high diagnosis-dependent treatment variation in the patient treatment model, which could be underreported in a real-world setting, where review by more than one to two dermatopathologists is relatively rare.