Kachiu C Lee1, Sue Peacock2, Martin A Weinstock3, Ge Alice Zhao4, Stevan R Knezevich5, David E Elder6, Raymond L Barnhill7, Michael W Piepkorn8, Lisa M Reisch2, Patricia A Carney9, Tracy Onega10, Jason P Lott11, Joann G Elmore12. 1. Department of Dermatology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Dermatology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Epidemiology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Dermatoepidemiology Unit, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, Rhode Island; Department of Dermatology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. 4. Division of Dermatology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington; Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 5. Pathology Associates, Clovis, California. 6. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 7. Departments of Pathology, Institut Curie, and Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Descartes, Paris, France. 8. 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. 9. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon. 10. Departments of Biomedical Data Science and Epidemiology, Norris Cotton Cancer Center, and Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire. 11. Cornell Scott-Hill Health Center, New Haven, Connecticut. 12. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: jelmore@uw.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent of variability in treatment suggestions for melanocytic lesions made by pathologists is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated how often pathologists rendered suggestions, reasons for providing suggestions, and concordance with national guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of pathologists. Data included physician characteristics, experience, and treatment recommendation practices. RESULTS: Of 301 pathologists, 207 (69%) from 10 states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington) enrolled. In all, 15% and 7% reported never and always including suggestions, respectively. Reasons for offering suggestions included improved care (79%), clarification (68%), and legal liability (39%). Reasons for not offering suggestions included referring physician preference (48%), lack of clinical information (44%), and expertise (29%). Training and caseload were associated with offering suggestions (P < .05). Physician suggestions were most consistent for mild/moderate dysplastic nevi and melanoma. For melanoma in situ, 18 (9%) and 32 (15%) pathologists made suggestions that undertreated or overtreated lesions based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, respectively. For invasive melanoma, 14 (7%) pathologists made treatment suggestions that undertreated lesions based on NCCN guidelines. LIMITATIONS: Treatment suggestions were self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists made recommendations ranging in consistency. These findings may inform efforts to reduce treatment variability and optimize patterns of care delivery for patients.
BACKGROUND: The extent of variability in treatment suggestions for melanocytic lesions made by pathologists is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We investigated how often pathologists rendered suggestions, reasons for providing suggestions, and concordance with national guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of pathologists. Data included physician characteristics, experience, and treatment recommendation practices. RESULTS: Of 301 pathologists, 207 (69%) from 10 states (California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington) enrolled. In all, 15% and 7% reported never and always including suggestions, respectively. Reasons for offering suggestions included improved care (79%), clarification (68%), and legal liability (39%). Reasons for not offering suggestions included referring physician preference (48%), lack of clinical information (44%), and expertise (29%). Training and caseload were associated with offering suggestions (P < .05). Physician suggestions were most consistent for mild/moderate dysplastic nevi and melanoma. For melanoma in situ, 18 (9%) and 32 (15%) pathologists made suggestions that undertreated or overtreated lesions based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, respectively. For invasive melanoma, 14 (7%) pathologists made treatment suggestions that undertreated lesions based on NCCN guidelines. LIMITATIONS: Treatment suggestions were self-reported. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists made recommendations ranging in consistency. These findings may inform efforts to reduce treatment variability and optimize patterns of care delivery for patients.
Authors: Raymond L Barnhill; Lorenzo Cerroni; Martin Cook; David E Elder; Helmut Kerl; Philip E LeBoit; Stanley W McCarthy; Martin C Mihm; Wolter J Mooi; Michael W Piepkorn; Victor G Prieto; Richard A Scolyer Journal: Adv Anat Pathol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: A Houghton; D Coit; W Bloomer; A Buzaid; D Chu; B Eisenburgh; J Guitart; T Johnson; S Miller; S Sener; K Tanabe; J Thompson; M Urist; M Walker Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Lorenzo Cerroni; Raymond Barnhill; David Elder; Geoffrey Gottlieb; Peter Heenan; Heinz Kutzner; Philip E LeBoit; Martin Mihm; Juan Rosai; Helmut Kerl Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: M W Piepkorn; R L Barnhill; L A Cannon-Albright; D E Elder; D E Goldgar; C M Lewis; J C Maize; L J Meyer; M S Rabkin; R W Sagebiel Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 1994-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Ronnie M Abraham; Giorgos Karakousis; Geza Acs; Amy F Ziober; Lorenzo Cerroni; Martin C Mihm; David E Elder; Xiaowei Xu Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Mathew W Ludgate; Douglas R Fullen; Julia Lee; Lori Lowe; Carol Bradford; James Geiger; Jennifer Schwartz; Timothy M Johnson Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: C Clemente; A J Cochran; D E Elder; A Levene; R M MacKie; M C Mihm; F Rilke; N Cascinelli; T B Fitzpatrick; A J Sober Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Inês P Santos; Remco van Doorn; Peter J Caspers; Tom C Bakker Schut; Elisa M Barroso; Tamar E C Nijsten; Vincent Noordhoek Hegt; Senada Koljenović; Gerwin J Puppels Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Mustufa A Jafry; Sue Peacock; Andrea C Radick; Hannah L Shucard; Lisa M Reisch; Michael W Piepkorn; Stevan R Knezevich; Martin A Weinstock; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Kathleen F Kerr; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 11.527