Laura A Taylor1, Megan M Eguchi2, Lisa M Reisch3, Andrea C Radick3, Hannah Shucard3, Kathleen F Kerr3, Michael W Piepkorn4,5, Stevan R Knezevich6, David E Elder7, Raymond L Barnhill8,9,10, Joann G Elmore2. 1. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky. 2. Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington. 5. Dermatopathology Northwest, Bellevue, Washington. 6. Pathology Associates, Clovis, California. 7. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 8. Department of Pathology, Curie Institute, Paris Sciences and Lettres Research University, Paris, France. 9. Department of Translational Research, Curie Institute, Paris Sciences and Lettres Research University, Paris, France. 10. Faculty of Medicine, University of Paris Descartes, Paris, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Synoptic reporting is recommended by many guideline committees to encourage the thorough histologic documentation necessary for optimal management of patients with melanoma. METHODS: One hundred fifty-one pathologists from 40 US states interpreted 41 invasive melanoma cases. For each synoptic reporting factor, the authors identified cases with "complete agreement" (all participants recorded the same value) versus any disagreement. Pairwise agreement was calculated for each case as the proportion of pairs of responses that agreed, where paired responses were generated by the comparison of each reviewer's response with all others. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among all reviewers for 22 of the 41 cases (54%) on Breslow thickness dichotomized at 0.8 mm, with pairwise agreement ranging from 49% to 100% across the 41 cases. There was complete agreement for "no ulceration" in 24 of the 41 cases (59%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 42% to 100%. Tumor transected at base had complete agreement for 26 of the 41 cases (63%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 31% to 100%. Mitotic rate, categorized as 0/mm2 , 1/mm2 , or 2/mm2 , had complete agreement for 17 of the 41 cases (41%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 36% to 100%. Regression saw complete agreement for 14 of 41 cases (34%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 40% to 100%. Lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and microscopic satellites were rarely reported as present. Respectively, these prognostic factors had complete agreement for 32 (78%), 37 (90%), and 18 (44%) of the 41 cases, and the ranges of pairwise agreement were 47% to 100%, 70% to 100%, and 53% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings alert pathologists and clinicians to the problem of interobserver variability in recording critical prognostic factors. LAY SUMMARY: This study addresses variability in the assessment and reporting of critical characteristics of invasive melanomas that are used by clinicians to guide patient care. The authors characterize the diagnostic variability among pathologists and their reporting methods in light of recently updated national guidelines. Results demonstrate considerable variability in the diagnostic reporting of melanoma with regard to the following: Breslow thickness, mitotic rate, ulceration, regression, and microscopic satellites. This work serves to alert pathologists and clinicians to the existence of variability in reporting these prognostic factors.
BACKGROUND: Synoptic reporting is recommended by many guideline committees to encourage the thorough histologic documentation necessary for optimal management of patients with melanoma. METHODS: One hundred fifty-one pathologists from 40 US states interpreted 41 invasive melanoma cases. For each synoptic reporting factor, the authors identified cases with "complete agreement" (all participants recorded the same value) versus any disagreement. Pairwise agreement was calculated for each case as the proportion of pairs of responses that agreed, where paired responses were generated by the comparison of each reviewer's response with all others. RESULTS: There was complete agreement among all reviewers for 22 of the 41 cases (54%) on Breslow thickness dichotomized at 0.8 mm, with pairwise agreement ranging from 49% to 100% across the 41 cases. There was complete agreement for "no ulceration" in 24 of the 41 cases (59%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 42% to 100%. Tumor transected at base had complete agreement for 26 of the 41 cases (63%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 31% to 100%. Mitotic rate, categorized as 0/mm2 , 1/mm2 , or 2/mm2 , had complete agreement for 17 of the 41 cases (41%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 36% to 100%. Regression saw complete agreement for 14 of 41 cases (34%), with pairwise agreement ranging from 40% to 100%. Lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and microscopic satellites were rarely reported as present. Respectively, these prognostic factors had complete agreement for 32 (78%), 37 (90%), and 18 (44%) of the 41 cases, and the ranges of pairwise agreement were 47% to 100%, 70% to 100%, and 53% to 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These findings alert pathologists and clinicians to the problem of interobserver variability in recording critical prognostic factors. LAY SUMMARY: This study addresses variability in the assessment and reporting of critical characteristics of invasive melanomas that are used by clinicians to guide patient care. The authors characterize the diagnostic variability among pathologists and their reporting methods in light of recently updated national guidelines. Results demonstrate considerable variability in the diagnostic reporting of melanoma with regard to the following: Breslow thickness, mitotic rate, ulceration, regression, and microscopic satellites. This work serves to alert pathologists and clinicians to the existence of variability in reporting these prognostic factors.
Authors: Konrad Aumann; Dominic Amann; Vera Gumpp; Dieter Hauschke; Gian Kayser; Annette M May; Ulrich Wetterauer; Martin Werner Journal: Histopathology Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Susan M Swetter; Hensin Tsao; Christopher K Bichakjian; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; David E Elder; Jeffrey E Gershenwald; Valerie Guild; Jane M Grant-Kels; Allan C Halpern; Timothy M Johnson; Arthur J Sober; John A Thompson; Oliver J Wisco; Samantha Wyatt; Shasa Hu; Toyin Lamina Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Michael W Piepkorn; Raymond L Barnhill; David E Elder; Stevan R Knezevich; Patricia A Carney; Lisa M Reisch; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.527
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: Konrad Aumann; Kathrin Niermann; Jasmin Asberger; Ulrich Wellner; Peter Bronsert; Thalia Erbes; Dieter Hauschke; Elmar Stickeler; Gerald Gitsch; Gian Kayser; Martin Werner Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Pedram Gerami; Klaus Busam; Alistair Cochran; Martin G Cook; Lyn M Duncan; David E Elder; Douglas R Fullen; Joan Guitart; Philip E LeBoit; Martin C Mihm; Victor G Prieto; Michael S Rabkin; Richard A Scolyer; Xiaowei Xu; Sook Jung Yun; Roxana Obregon; Pedram Yazdan; Chelsea Cooper; Bing Bing Weitner; Alfred Rademaker; Raymond L Barnhill Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Laura Taylor; Kyle Hood; Lisa Reisch; Joann Elmore; Michael Piepkorn; Raymond Barnhill; Stevan Knezevich; Andrea Radick; David Elder Journal: J Cutan Pathol Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 1.587
Authors: Mary-Ann El Sharouni; Karina Aivazian; Arjen J Witkamp; Vigfús Sigurdsson; Carla H van Gils; Richard A Scolyer; John F Thompson; Paul J van Diest; Serigne N Lo Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Caro E Sluijter; Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen; Henk-Jan van Slooten; Iris D Nagtegaal; Lucy I H Overbeek Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Kathleen F Kerr; Gary M Longton; Lisa M Reisch; Andrea C Radick; Megan M Eguchi; Hannah L Shucard; Margaret S Pepe; Michael W Piepkorn; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Joann G Elmore Journal: Clin Exp Dermatol Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 4.481