DERMATOLOGY - - - - - - Gaudi 2013 Retrospective review of all Dermatopathology Initial diagnosis Expert review provided by Initial Number of cases with no initial outside cases referred to a or no diagnosis either of two diagnosis diagnosis N=405 casesd dermatopathology unit for dermatopathologists, rendered Diagnostic accuracy (major and expert consultation or from the University of minor discrepancies) mandatory second review Pittsburgh Diagnostic category of major during one calendar year. Dermatopathology Unit. discrepancies Expert review requested by United States Use of IHC 85 pathologists – 18.8% Training of referring pathologist were dermatopathology trained. van Dijk 2008 Retrospective review of Cutaneous Initial diagnosis EEO provided by the Dutch Initial Nature of initial pathology opinion 1887 lesions sent to the melanocytic or no diagnosis Melanoma Working Group diagnosis (no/differential/provisional pathology panel of the Dutch when a primary pathologist lesions rendered diagnosis) Melanoma Working Group encountered difficulties N=1837 cases Characteristics of submitted lesions for voluntary expert review diagnosing or classifying (Spitz naevus, melanoma, etc) between 1991 and 2004. potential cutaneous Diagnostic accuracy (concordance, Fifty lesions were not melanocytic lesion. discordance; over- and diagnosed as cutaneous Approximately 75% of melanocytic lesions and submitted lesions were Use of IHC were subsequently excluded reviewed by an individual Features of problematic lesions from the study. panel member and Changes over time regarding the discussed at a regular The Netherlands features of submitted lesions pathology panel meetinge; 25% were reviewed by the individual panel member only and were not discussed with other panel members.
DERMATOLOGY - - - - - - Gaudi 2013 Retrospective review of all outside cases referred to a dermatopathology unit for expert consultation or mandatory second review during one calendar year. United States Dermatopathology N=405 casesd Initial diagnosis or no diagnosis rendered Expert review provided by either of two dermatopathologists, from the University of Pittsburgh Dermatopathology Unit. Expert review requested by 85 pathologists – 18.8% were dermatopathology trained. Initial diagnosis Number of cases with no initial diagnosis Diagnostic accuracy (major and minor discrepancies) Diagnostic category of major discrepancies Use of IHC Training of referring pathologist van Dijk 2008 Retrospective review of 1887 lesions sent to the pathology panel of the Dutch Melanoma Working Group for voluntary expert review between 1991 and 2004. Fifty lesions were not diagnosed as cutaneous melanocytic lesions and were subsequently excluded from the study. The Netherlands Cutaneous melanocytic lesions N=1837 cases Initial diagnosis or no diagnosis rendered EEO provided by the Dutch Melanoma Working Group when a primary pathologist encountered difficulties diagnosing or classifying potential cutaneous melanocytic lesion. Approximately 75% of submitted lesions were reviewed by an individual panel member and discussed at a regular pathology panel meetinge; 25% were reviewed by the individual panel member only and were not discussed with other panel members. Initial diagnosis Nature of initial pathology opinion (no/differential/provisional diagnosis) Characteristics of submitted lesions (Spitz naevus, melanoma, etc) Diagnostic accuracy (concordance, discordance; over- and Use of IHC Features of problematic lesions Changes over time regarding the features of submitted lesions
1332%20-%20FinalAssessmentReport%20-accessible.docx