Who sends what: a comparison of dermatopathology referrals from dermatologists, pathologists and dermatopathologists
- PMID: 18201232
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0560.2007.00869.x
Who sends what: a comparison of dermatopathology referrals from dermatologists, pathologists and dermatopathologists
Abstract
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.
Similar articles
-
Assessing comfort level with pediatric skin specimens among dermatopathologists and pediatric pathologists: A national cross-sectional survey.J Cutan Pathol. 2021 Sep;48(9):1109-1114. doi: 10.1111/cup.13997. Epub 2021 Mar 14. J Cutan Pathol. 2021. PMID: 33635594
-
Discrepancies in dermatopathology diagnoses: the role of second review policies and dermatopathology fellowship training.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Jan;68(1):119-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2012.06.034. Epub 2012 Aug 11. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013. PMID: 22892284
-
[Pseudolymphoma of the skin: ambiguous terminology: a survey among dermatologists and pathologists].Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2013 Feb;140(2):105-11. doi: 10.1016/j.annder.2012.10.600. Epub 2012 Dec 14. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2013. PMID: 23395491 French.
-
Malpractice in dermatopathology: principles, risk mitigation, and opportunities for improved care for the histologic diagnosis of melanoma and pigmented lesions.Clin Lab Med. 2008 Jun;28(2):261-84, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.cll.2007.12.006. Clin Lab Med. 2008. PMID: 18436070 Review.
-
Practical Strategies to Improve the Clinical Utility of the Dermatopathology Report.Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016 Aug;140(8):759-65. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0474-RA. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2016. PMID: 27472234 Review.
Cited by
-
Dermatologic Lesions Submitted to an Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Biopsy Service: An Analysis of 2487 Cases.Head Neck Pathol. 2018 Dec;12(4):493-499. doi: 10.1007/s12105-018-0885-7. Epub 2018 Jan 16. Head Neck Pathol. 2018. PMID: 29340950 Free PMC article.
-
Pathologists' Use of Second Opinions in Interpretation of Melanocytic Cutaneous Lesions: Policies, Practices, and Perceptions.Dermatol Surg. 2018 Feb;44(2):177-185. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001256. Dermatol Surg. 2018. PMID: 28858936 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical