Comfere, Nneka

AbstractBackgroundTechnology has revolutionized not only direct patient care but also diagnostic care processes. This study evaluates the transition from glass‐slide microscopy to digital pathology (DP) at a multisite academic institution, using mixed methods to understand user perceptions of digitization and key productivity metrics of practice change.MethodsParticipants included dermatopathologists, pathology reporting specialists, and clinicians. Electronic surveys and individual or group interviews included questions related to technology comfort, trust in DP, and rationale for DP adoption. Case volumes and turnaround times were abstracted from the electronic health record from Qtr 4 2020 to Qtr 1 2023 (inclusive). Data were analyzed descriptively, while interviews were analyzed using methods of content analysis.ResultsThirty‐four staff completed surveys and 22 participated in an interview. Case volumes and diagnostic turnaround time did not differ across the institution during or after implementation timelines (p = 0.084; p = 0.133, respectively). 82.5% (28/34) of staff agreed that DP improved the sign‐out experience, with accessibility, ergonomics, and annotation features described as key factors. Clinicians reported positive perspectives of DP impact on patient safety and interdisciplinary collaboration.ConclusionsOur study demonstrates that DP has a high acceptance rate, does not adversely impact productivity, and may improve patient safety and care collaboration.

AbstractBackgroundAppropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient‐centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests.MethodsRAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2.ResultsFor 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid‐Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated “usually appropriate” or “rarely appropriate” and 45 of 148 (30%), “appropriateness uncertain.” Limitations: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded.ConclusionsAUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

AbstractBackgroundMycosis fungoides (MF) is characterized by epidermotropic atypical lymphocytes in the absence of spongiosis. However, we describe an unusual presentation of MF with spongiosis, mimicking benign inflammatory dermatoses and highlight the importance of pathologic interpretation for diagnostic confirmation.MethodsA cross‐sectional study of consecutive patients diagnosed with MF with spongiosis was conducted. The clinical, histopathologic, immunophenotypic, and molecular genetic features of cases were reviewed.ResultsWe identified nine cases of MF (age range 34‐82 years; mean 75 years), with an initial diagnosis of dermatitis (6/9), psoriasis (4/9), or other inflammatory dermatoses (2/9). Pruritus, pain, and blisters were common clinical manifestations. The most common areas of involvement were the extremities (8/9). Epidermotropism with spongiosis was a central histopathological feature in all cases.ConclusionThese cases highlight prominent spongiosis in MF and overlap with common benign inflammatory dermatoses. We present these cases to show the diagnostic pitfalls associated with spongiotic presentations of MF. Dermatitis, psoriasis, and other inflammatory skin conditions not responsive to standard therapy warrant further work‐up including biopsy to rule out MF. Multiple skin biopsies and review by a dermatopathologist with expertise in the diagnosis of cutaneous lymphoma is highly recommended.