Terminology for melanocytic skin lesions and the MPATH‐Dx classification schema: A survey of dermatopathologists. (6th November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Radick, Andrea C.; Reisch, Lisa M.; Shucard, Hannah L.; Piepkorn, Michael W.; Kerr, Kathleen F.; Elder, David E.; Barnhill, Raymond L.; Knezevich, Stevan R.; Oster, Natalia; Elmore, Joann G.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cutaneous pathology. Volume 48:Number 6(2021)
• Page Start: 733
• Page End: 738
• Publication Date: 2020-11-06
• Subjects: dermatopathology -- diagnosis -- melanocytic lesions -- standardization -- terminology; Skin -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Dermatology -- Periodicals; 616
• DOI: 10.1111/cup.13873
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0303-6987

Abstract

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.