Terminology for melanocytic skin lesions and the MPATH-Dx classification schema: A survey of dermatopathologists
- PMID: 32935869
- PMCID: PMC7960566
- DOI: 10.1111/cup.13873
Terminology for melanocytic skin lesions and the MPATH-Dx classification schema: A survey of dermatopathologists
Abstract
Background: Diagnostic terms used in histopathology reports of cutaneous melanocytic lesions are not standardized. We describe dermatopathologists' views regarding diverse diagnostic terminology and the utility of the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis (MPATH-Dx) for categorizing melanocytic lesions.
Methods: July 2018-2019 survey of board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists with experience interpreting melanocytic lesions.
Results: Among 160 participants, 99% reported witnessing different terminology being used for the same melanocytic lesion. Most viewed diverse terminology as confusing to primary care physicians (98%), frustrating to pathologists (83%), requiring more of their time as a consultant (64%), and providing necessary clinical information (52%). Most perceived that adoption of the MPATH-Dx would: improve communication with other pathologists and treating physicians (87%), generally be a change for the better (80%), improve patient care (79%), be acceptable to clinical colleagues (68%), save time in pathology report documentation (53%), and protect from malpractice (51%).
Conclusions: Most dermatopathologists view diverse terminology as contributing to miscommunication with clinicians and patients, adversely impacting patient care. They view the MPATH-Dx as a promising tool to standardize terminology and improve communication. The MPATH-Dx may be a useful supplement to conventional pathology reports. Further revision and refinement are necessary for widespread clinical use.
Keywords: dermatopathology; diagnosis; melanocytic lesions; standardization; terminology.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S . Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors do not have any relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
- R01CA201376/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- P30 CA015704/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- UL1 TR002319/TR/NCATS NIH HHS/United States
- The content is solely the responsibility of the authors. The NCI had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication
- R01 CA201376/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States