Inter‐observer variation in the histopathological diagnosis of clinically suspicious pigmented skin lesions

When a biopsy is taken of a suspicious pigmented skin lesion, histological examination is expected to establish the definitive diagnosis. This study evaluated the inter‐observer variation of 20 pathologists in the histological diagnosis of a randomly selected set of suspicious pigmented skin lesions (PSLs), by comparing their diagnoses to a reference diagnosis. Overall sensitivity for melanoma was 87%, ranging from 55% to 100% between the observers. Sensitivity was significantly lower for thin (Breslow thickness <1 mm) than for thick melanomas (83% versus 97%, p=0.005). Overall melanoma specificity was 94%, ranging from 83% to 100% between observers. Dysplastic naevus was the most important source of false‐positive diagnoses, mainly in situ melanomas. Positive and negative predictive values in the given test set were 75% and 97%, respectively. In the case of melanoma, there was quite some variation in measured Breslow thickness. This would have led to a different therapeutic approach in 12% of the readings. Some of the variation seemed to be due to a different interpretation of the presence of a co‐existent naevus. In 9% (3/35) of the readings, participants did not agree on the presence of ulceration. These results reflect a tendency to overdiagnose mainly thin melanomas in general histopathological practice. They also demonstrate variation in the assessment of major prognostic factors of melanoma. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Martin F. Mihm,et al.  A new American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for cutaneous melanoma , 2000, Cancer.

[2]  M. Mihm,et al.  Recognition and evaluation of cytological dysplasia in acquired melanocytic nevi. , 1999, Human pathology.

[3]  M. Mihm,et al.  Atypical Spitz nevi/tumors: lack of consensus for diagnosis, discrimination from melanoma, and prediction of outcome. , 1999, Human pathology.

[4]  E. Kay,et al.  Identification of vertical growth phase in malignant melanoma. A study of interobserver agreement. , 1998, American journal of clinical pathology.

[5]  J. Hunter,et al.  Cutaneous malignant melanoma in Scotland: incidence, survival, and mortality, 1979-94 , 1997, BMJ.

[6]  S. Cramer Interobserver variability in dermatopathology. , 1997, Archives of dermatology.

[7]  T. McCalmont Melanoma and melanoma in situ: build a better diagnosis through architecture. , 1997, Seminars in cutaneous medicine and surgery.

[8]  R. Marks,et al.  Who removes pigmented skin lesions? , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[9]  S. Humphreys,et al.  A nationwide survey of observer variation in the diagnosis of thin cutaneous malignant melanoma including the MIN terminology. CRC Melanoma Pathology Panel. , 1997, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[10]  R. Marks The 19th World Congress of Dermatology, Sydney, Australia, June 15-21, 1997. Look back! Look around! Look forward! , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[11]  E. Farmer,et al.  Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists. , 1996, Human pathology.

[12]  S. Humphreys,et al.  The evaluation of diagnostic and prognostic criteria and the terminology of thin cutaneous malignant melanoma by the CRC Melanoma Pathology Panel , 1996, Histopathology.

[13]  M. Skolnick,et al.  Interobserver concordance in discriminating clinical atypia of melanocytic nevi, and correlations with histologic atypia. , 1996, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[14]  R. Corona,et al.  Interobserver variability on the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  R. Swerlick,et al.  The melanoma epidemic. Is increased surveillance the solution or the problem? , 1996, Archives of dermatology.

[16]  P. Andersen,et al.  Observer variation in histological classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma. , 1995, Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery and hand surgery.

[17]  W. Clark,et al.  Inter-observer variability among pathologists' evaluation of malignant melanoma: effects upon an analytic study. , 1994, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  U. Ringborg,et al.  Prognostic factors in thin cutaneous malignant melanoma , 1994, Cancer.

[19]  C. Lewis,et al.  A multiobserver, population-based analysis of histologic dysplasia in melanocytic nevi. , 1994, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[20]  N. Dubin,et al.  Prediction of histologic melanocytic dysplasia from clinical observation. , 1993, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[21]  D. Elder,et al.  Lessons from tumor progression: the invasive radial growth phase of melanoma is common, incapable of metastasis, and indolent. , 1993, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[22]  M. Mihm,et al.  Histopathologic recognition and grading of dysplastic melanocytic nevi: an interobserver agreement study. , 1993, The Journal of investigative dermatology.

[23]  D. Ruiter,et al.  Validity of the histopathological criteria used for diagnosing dysplastic naevi. An interobserver study by the pathology subgroup of the EORTC Malignant Melanoma Cooperative Group. , 1993, European journal of cancer.

[24]  R. Dersimonian,et al.  An analysis of interobserver recognition of the histopathologic features of dysplastic nevi from a mixed group of nevomelanocytic lesions. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[25]  L. M. Roth,et al.  The mystique of the mistake. With proposed standards for validating proficiency tests in anatomic pathology. , 1991, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  L. McWilliam,et al.  Performance of skin biopsies by general practitioners. , 1991, BMJ.

[27]  Allen Caldwell,et al.  Panel , 1991, 2021 IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom).

[28]  A. Ackerman Histologic atypia in clinically benign nevi. , 1991, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[29]  D. Elder,et al.  Histopathologic diagnosis of dysplastic nevi: concordance among pathologists convened by the World Health Organization Melanoma Programme. , 1991, Human pathology.

[30]  J. Davies,et al.  Measurement techniques for melanoma: a statistical comparison , 1991, Journal of clinical pathology.

[31]  P. Colloby,et al.  Observer variation in the measurement of Breslow depth and Clark's level in thin cutaneous malignant melanoma , 1991, The Journal of pathology.

[32]  M. Piepkorn A hypothesis incorporating the histologic characteristics of dysplastic nevi into the normal biological development of melanocytic nevi. , 1990, Archives of dermatology.

[33]  R. Barr,et al.  Histologic atypia in clinically benign nevi. A prospective study. , 1990, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

[34]  J. Bonerandi,et al.  Dysplastic naevus in non‐familial melanoma. A clinicopathological study of 101 cases , 1988, The British journal of dermatology.

[35]  D. Ruiter,et al.  The efficacy of histopathological criteria required for diagnosing dysplastic naevi , 1988, Histopathology.

[36]  M. N. Epstein,et al.  A study of tumor progression: the precursor lesions of superficial spreading and nodular melanoma. , 1984, Human pathology.

[37]  C. Holman,et al.  Inter‐observer variation between pathologists in the classification of cutaneous malignant melanoma in Western Australia , 1984, Histopathology.

[38]  R. Riegelman Studying a Study and Testing a Test: How to Read the Medical Literature , 1981 .

[39]  A. Cochran,et al.  Difficulties encountered in the application of clark classification and the Breslow thickness measurement in cutaneous malignant melanoma , 1980, International journal of cancer.