Objective To quantify the accuracy and reproducibility of pathologists’ diagnoses of melanocytic skin lesions. Design Observer accuracy and reproducibility study. Setting 10 US states. Participants Skin biopsy cases (n=240), grouped into sets of 36 or 48. Pathologists from 10 US states were randomized to independently interpret the same set on two occasions (phases 1 and 2), at least eight months apart. Main outcome measures Pathologists’ interpretations were condensed into five classes: I (eg, nevus or mild atypia); II (eg, moderate atypia); III (eg, severe atypia or melanoma in situ); IV (eg, pathologic stage T1a (pT1a) early invasive melanoma); and V (eg, ≥pT1b invasive melanoma). Reproducibility was assessed by intraobserver and interobserver concordance rates, and accuracy by concordance with three reference diagnoses. Results In phase 1, 187 pathologists completed 8976 independent case interpretations resulting in an average of 10 (SD 4) different diagnostic terms applied to each case. Among pathologists interpreting the same cases in both phases, when pathologists diagnosed a case as class I or class V during phase 1, they gave the same diagnosis in phase 2 for the majority of cases (class I 76.7%; class V 82.6%). However, the intraobserver reproducibility was lower for cases interpreted as class II (35.2%), class III (59.5%), and class IV (63.2%). Average interobserver concordance rates were lower, but with similar trends. Accuracy using a consensus diagnosis of experienced pathologists as reference varied by class: I, 92% (95% confidence interval 90% to 94%); II, 25% (22% to 28%); III, 40% (37% to 44%); IV, 43% (39% to 46%); and V, 72% (69% to 75%). It is estimated that at a population level, 82.8% (81.0% to 84.5%) of melanocytic skin biopsy diagnoses would have their diagnosis verified if reviewed by a consensus reference panel of experienced pathologists, with 8.0% (6.2% to 9.9%) of cases overinterpreted by the initial pathologist and 9.2% (8.8% to 9.6%) underinterpreted. Conclusion Diagnoses spanning moderately dysplastic nevi to early stage invasive melanoma were neither reproducible nor accurate in this large study of pathologists in the USA. Efforts to improve clinical practice should include using a standardized classification system, acknowledging uncertainty in pathology reports, and developing tools such as molecular markers to support pathologists’ visual assessments.

Racial differences were identified at each step in the evaluation and treatment clinical pathway, including method of detection, timing from first symptoms of cancer to pathologic diagnosis, and timing from diagnosis to initiation of treatment. The findings highlight the need to provide equal opportunity for timely medical care and treatment.

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.

Community radiologists varied widely in their false-positive rates in screening mammograms; this variability range was reduced by half, but not eliminated, after statistical adjustment for patient, radiologist, and testing characteristics. These characteristics need to be considered when evaluating false-positive rates in community mammographic examination screening.

Aims To gain a better understanding of the reasons for diagnostic variability, with the aim of reducing the phenomenon. Methods and results In preparation for a study on the interpretation of breast specimens (B-PATH), a panel of three experienced breast pathologists reviewed 336 cases to develop consensus reference diagnoses. After independent assessment, cases coded as diagnostically discordant were discussed at consensus meetings. By the use of qualitative data analysis techniques, transcripts of 16 h of consensus meetings for a subset of 201 cases were analysed. Diagnostic variability could be attributed to three overall root causes: (i) pathologist-related; (ii) diagnostic coding/study methodology-related; and (iii) specimen-related. Most pathologist-related root causes were attributable to professional differences in pathologists’ opinions about whether the diagnostic criteria for a specific diagnosis were met, most frequently in cases of atypia. Diagnostic coding/study methodology-related root causes were primarily miscategorizations of descriptive text diagnoses, which led to the development of a standardized electronic diagnostic form (BPATH-Dx). Specimen-related root causes included artefacts, limited diagnostic material, and poor slide quality. After re-review and discussion, a consensus diagnosis could be assigned in all cases. Conclusions Diagnostic variability is related to multiple factors, but consensus conferences, standardized electronic reporting formats and comments on suboptimal specimen quality can be used to reduce diagnostic variability.