Department of Dermatology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Dermatology. 2012;224(1):51-8. doi: 10.1159/000336886. Epub 2012 Mar 20.
The 'gold standard' for the diagnosis of melanocytic lesions is dermatopathology. Although most of the diagnostic criteria are clearly defined, the interpretation of histopathology slides may be subject to interobserver variability.
The aim of this study was to determine the variability among dermatopathologists in the interpretation of clinically difficult melanocytic lesions.
This study used the database of MelaFind®, a computer-vision system for the diagnosis of melanoma. All lesions were surgically removed and sent for independent evaluation by four dermatopathologists. Agreement was calculated using kappa statistics.
A total of 1,249 pigmented melanocytic lesions were included. There was a substantial agreement among expert dermatopathologists: two-category kappa was 0.80 (melanoma vs. non-melanoma) and three-category kappa was 0.62 (malignant vs. borderline vs. benign melanocytic lesions). The agreement was significantly greater for patients ≥40 years (three-category kappa = 0.67) than for younger patients (kappa = 0.49). In addition, the agreement was significantly lower for patients with atypical mole syndrome (AMS) (kappa = 0.31) than for patients without AMS (kappa = 0.76).
The data were limited by the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the MelaFind® study. This might represent a selection bias. The agreement was evaluated using kappa statistics. This is a standard method for evaluating agreement among pathologists, but might be considered controversial by some statisticians.
Expert dermatopathologists have a high level of agreement when diagnosing clinically difficult melanocytic lesions. However, even among expert dermatopathologists, the current 'gold standard' is not perfect. Our results indicate that lesions from younger patients and patients with AMS may be more problematic for the dermatopathologists, suggesting that improved diagnostic criteria are needed for such patients.
黑素细胞病变的“金标准”诊断方法是皮肤科病理学。虽然大多数诊断标准都有明确的定义,但组织病理学切片的解读可能存在观察者间的变异性。
本研究旨在确定皮肤科病理学家在解读临床疑难黑素细胞病变时的变异性。
本研究使用了 MelaFind®的数据库,这是一种用于诊断黑色素瘤的计算机视觉系统。所有病变均通过手术切除,并由四位皮肤科病理学家进行独立评估。使用 Kappa 统计来计算一致性。
共纳入 1249 例色素性黑素细胞病变。专家皮肤科病理学家之间存在实质性一致性:两分类 Kappa 值为 0.80(黑色素瘤与非黑色素瘤),三分类 Kappa 值为 0.62(恶性、交界性与良性黑素细胞病变)。对于≥40 岁的患者(三分类 Kappa = 0.67),一致性明显更高,而对于年轻患者(Kappa = 0.49)则较低。此外,对于有不典型痣综合征(AMS)的患者(Kappa = 0.31),一致性明显低于无 AMS 的患者(Kappa = 0.76)。
数据受到 MelaFind®研究的纳入/排除标准的限制。这可能代表选择偏倚。使用 Kappa 统计来评估一致性。这是评估病理学家之间一致性的标准方法,但可能被一些统计学家认为存在争议。
当诊断临床疑难黑素细胞病变时,专家皮肤科病理学家具有高度的一致性。然而,即使是在专家皮肤科病理学家中,目前的“金标准”也并不完美。我们的结果表明,年轻患者和有 AMS 的患者的病变可能对皮肤科病理学家来说更具挑战性,这表明需要为这些患者制定更好的诊断标准。