Michael W Piepkorn1, Raymond L Barnhill2, David E Elder3, Stevan R Knezevich4, Patricia A Carney5, Lisa M Reisch6, Joann G Elmore6. 1. Division of Dermatology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Dermatopathology Northwest, Bellevue, Washington. Electronic address: mpiepkor@uw.edu. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, Washington. 5. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health Sciences University, Portland, Oregon. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The histologic diagnosis of melanoma and nevi can be subject to discordance and errors, potentially leading to inappropriate treatment and harm. Diagnostic terminology is not standardized, creating confusion for providers and patients and challenges for investigators. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the development of a pathology reporting form for more precise research on melanoma and a diagnostic-treatment mapping tool for improved patient care and consistency in treatment. METHODS: Three dermatopathologists independently reviewed melanocytic lesions randomly selected from a dermatopathology database. Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) reporting schema evolved from iterative case review and form revision. RESULTS: Differences in diagnostic thresholds, interpretation, and nomenclature contributed to development of the MPATH-Dx histology reporting form, which groups lesions by similarities in histogenesis and degrees of atypia. Because preliminary results indicate greater agreement regarding suggested treatments than for specific diagnoses, the diverse terminologies of the MPATH-Dx histology reporting form were stratified by commonalities of treatments in the MPATH-Dx diagnostic-treatment mapping scheme. LIMITATIONS: Without transformative advances in diagnostic paradigms, the interpretation of melanocytic lesions frequently remains subjective. CONCLUSIONS: The MPATH-Dx diagnostic-treatment mapping scheme could diminish confusion for those receiving reports by categorizing diverse nomenclature into a hierarchy stratified by suggested management interventions.
BACKGROUND: The histologic diagnosis of melanoma and nevi can be subject to discordance and errors, potentially leading to inappropriate treatment and harm. Diagnostic terminology is not standardized, creating confusion for providers and patients and challenges for investigators. OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe the development of a pathology reporting form for more precise research on melanoma and a diagnostic-treatment mapping tool for improved patient care and consistency in treatment. METHODS: Three dermatopathologists independently reviewed melanocytic lesions randomly selected from a dermatopathology database. Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) reporting schema evolved from iterative case review and form revision. RESULTS: Differences in diagnostic thresholds, interpretation, and nomenclature contributed to development of the MPATH-Dx histology reporting form, which groups lesions by similarities in histogenesis and degrees of atypia. Because preliminary results indicate greater agreement regarding suggested treatments than for specific diagnoses, the diverse terminologies of the MPATH-Dx histology reporting form were stratified by commonalities of treatments in the MPATH-Dx diagnostic-treatment mapping scheme. LIMITATIONS: Without transformative advances in diagnostic paradigms, the interpretation of melanocytic lesions frequently remains subjective. CONCLUSIONS: The MPATH-Dx diagnostic-treatment mapping scheme could diminish confusion for those receiving reports by categorizing diverse nomenclature into a hierarchy stratified by suggested management interventions.
Keywords:
AJCC; American Joint Committee on Cancer; BI-RADS; Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System; MPATH-Dx; Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis; diagnosis; diagnostic errors; discordance; dysplasia; melanoma; nevi; observer variability
Authors: R L Barnhill; Z B Argenyi; L From; L F Glass; J C Maize; M C Mihm; M S Rabkin; S G Ronan; W L White; M Piepkorn Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1999-05 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Sudeep Gaudi; J Manuel Zarandona; Stephen S Raab; Joseph C English; Drazen M Jukic Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2012-08-11 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Richard A Scolyer; Helen M Shaw; John F Thompson; Ling-Xi L Li; Marjorie H Colman; Sing Kai Lo; Stanley W McCarthy; A Allan Palmer; Katherine D Nicoll; Bish Dutta; Eric Slobedman; Geoff F Watson; Jonathan R Stretch Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Rajmohan Murali; Michael T Hughes; Patrick Fitzgerald; John F Thompson; Richard A Scolyer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: J M H Timmers; H J van Doorne-Nagtegaal; H M Zonderland; H van Tinteren; O Visser; A L M Verbeek; G J den Heeten; M J M Broeders Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Lisa M Reisch; Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Stevan Knezevich; Berta M Geller; Gary Longton; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; Gary M Longton; Heidi D Nelson; Stevan R Knezevich; Margaret S Pepe; Patricia A Carney; Linda J Titus; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Martin A Weinstock; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Stevan R Knezevich; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Michael W Piepkorn; Lisa M Reisch; Gaia Pocobelli; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Hannah Shucard; Michael W Piepkorn; Lisa M Reisch; Kathleen F Kerr; Andrea C Radick; Pin-Chieh Wang; Stevan R Knezevich; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Joann G Elmore Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Jason P Lott; Denise M Boudreau; Ray L Barnhill; Martin A Weinstock; Eleanor Knopp; Michael W Piepkorn; David E Elder; Steven R Knezevich; Andrew Baer; Anna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Ge Zhao; Kachiu C Lee; Gina Kwon; Paul D Frederick; Tracy L Onega; Michael W Piepkorn; Stevan Knezevich; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2016-04-07 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Kachiu C Lee; Sue Peacock; Martin A Weinstock; Ge Alice Zhao; Stevan R Knezevich; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Jason P Lott; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2016-09-28 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Tracy Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Gary M Longton; David E Elder; Martin A Weinstock; Stevan R Knezevich; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Heidi D Nelson; Andrea C Radick; Joann G Elmore Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 10.282
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
Authors: Jason P Lott; Joann G Elmore; Ge A Zhao; Stevan R Knezevich; Paul D Frederick; Lisa M Reisch; Emily Y Chu; Martin G Cook; Lyn M Duncan; Rosalie Elenitsas; Pedram Gerami; Gilles Landman; Lori Lowe; Jane L Messina; Martin C Mihm; Joost J van den Oord; Michael S Rabkin; Birgitta Schmidt; Christopher R Shea; Sook Jung Yun; George X Xu; Michael W Piepkorn; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 11.527