BACKGROUND: Dermatopathologists, dermatologists and pathologists interpret skin pathology specimens. OBJECTIVE: To examine dermatopathology referral patterns of dermatologists, pathologists and dermatopathologists. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed diagnoses rendered by one dermatopathologist to 916 primary interpretation cases (543 from university dermatologists and 373 from private practice dermatologists) and 517 consultations (450 from dermatologists, 52 from pathologists and 15 from dermatopathologists). Each diagnosis was assigned into one of six categories. Chi-square tests were used to compare referral types pairwise and correspondence analysis was performed. RESULTS: All profile comparisons tested significantly from each other (p-value < 0.01) except the comparison between dermatopathologists and pathologists. Correspondence analysis suggested that consultation profile of dermatopathologists was most dissimilar from other profiles and tended to associate more with the presence of malignant and benign melanocytic referral types. Referral pattern of pathologists was more similar to that of dermatologists who interpret skin pathology specimens than that of dermatopathologists. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, referral bias, difficulty classifying certain lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Referral pattern of dermatopathologists was most dissimilar from other profiles and tended to associate more with malignant and benign melanocytic referral types. Referral pattern of pathologists was more similar to that of dermatologists who interpret skin pathology specimens than that of dermatopathologists.
BACKGROUND: Dermatopathologists, dermatologists and pathologists interpret skin pathology specimens. OBJECTIVE: To examine dermatopathology referral patterns of dermatologists, pathologists and dermatopathologists. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed diagnoses rendered by one dermatopathologist to 916 primary interpretation cases (543 from university dermatologists and 373 from private practice dermatologists) and 517 consultations (450 from dermatologists, 52 from pathologists and 15 from dermatopathologists). Each diagnosis was assigned into one of six categories. Chi-square tests were used to compare referral types pairwise and correspondence analysis was performed. RESULTS: All profile comparisons tested significantly from each other (p-value < 0.01) except the comparison between dermatopathologists and pathologists. Correspondence analysis suggested that consultation profile of dermatopathologists was most dissimilar from other profiles and tended to associate more with the presence of malignant and benign melanocytic referral types. Referral pattern of pathologists was more similar to that of dermatologists who interpret skin pathology specimens than that of dermatopathologists. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size, referral bias, difficulty classifying certain lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Referral pattern of dermatopathologists was most dissimilar from other profiles and tended to associate more with malignant and benign melanocytic referral types. Referral pattern of pathologists was more similar to that of dermatologists who interpret skin pathology specimens than that of dermatopathologists.
Authors: Rekha Reddy; Liya Davidova; Indraneel Bhattacharyya; Donald M Cohen; Mohammed N Islam; Sarah G Fitzpatrick Journal: Head Neck Pathol Date: 2018-01-16
Authors: Berta M Geller; Paul D Frederick; Stevan R Knezevich; Jason P Lott; Heidi D Nelson; Linda J Titus; Patricia A Carney; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy L Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Martin A Weinstock; David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.398