Objective To quantify the accuracy and reproducibility of pathologists’ diagnoses of melanocytic skin lesions.,Design Observer accuracy and reproducibility study.,Setting 10 US states.,Participants Skin biopsy cases (n=240), grouped into sets of 36 or 48.,Pathologists from 10 US states were randomized to independently interpret the same set on two occasions (phases 1 and 2), at least eight months apart.,Main outcome measures Pathologists’ interpretations were condensed into five classes: I (eg, nevus or mild atypia); II (eg, moderate atypia); III (eg, severe atypia or melanoma in situ); IV (eg, pathologic stage T1a (pT1a) early invasive melanoma); and V (eg, ≥pT1b invasive melanoma).,Reproducibility was assessed by intraobserver and interobserver concordance rates, and accuracy by concordance with three reference diagnoses.,Results In phase 1, 187 pathologists completed 8976 independent case interpretations resulting in an average of 10 (SD 4) different diagnostic terms applied to each case.,Among pathologists interpreting the same cases in both phases, when pathologists diagnosed a case as class I or class V during phase 1, they gave the same diagnosis in phase 2 for the majority of cases (class I 76.7%; class V 82.6%).,However, the intraobserver reproducibility was lower for cases interpreted as class II (35.2%), class III (59.5%), and class IV (63.2%).,Average interobserver concordance rates were lower, but with similar trends.,Accuracy using a consensus diagnosis of experienced pathologists as reference varied by class: I, 92% (95% confidence interval 90% to 94%); II, 25% (22% to 28%); III, 40% (37% to 44%); IV, 43% (39% to 46%); and V, 72% (69% to 75%).,It is estimated that at a population level, 82.8% (81.0% to 84.5%) of melanocytic skin biopsy diagnoses would have their diagnosis verified if reviewed by a consensus reference panel of experienced pathologists, with 8.0% (6.2% to 9.9%) of cases overinterpreted by the initial pathologist and 9.2% (8.8% to 9.6%) underinterpreted.,Conclusion Diagnoses spanning moderately dysplastic nevi to early stage invasive melanoma were neither reproducible nor accurate in this large study of pathologists in the USA.,Efforts to improve clinical practice should include using a standardized classification system, acknowledging uncertainty in pathology reports, and developing tools such as molecular markers to support pathologists’ visual assessments.
Even though progress has been made, the detection of melanoma still poses a challenge.,In light of this situation, the Nevisense electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) system (SciBase AB, Stockholm, Sweden) was designed and shown to have the potential to be used as an adjunct diagnostic tool for melanoma detection.,To assess the effectiveness and safety of the Nevisense system in the distinction of benign lesions of the skin from melanoma with electrical impedance spectroscopy.,This multicentre, prospective, and blinded clinical study was conducted at five American and 17 European investigational sites.,All eligible skin lesions in the study were examined with the EIS-based Nevisense system, photographed, removed by excisional biopsy and subjected to histopathological evaluation.,A postprocedure clinical follow-up was conducted at 7 ± 3 days from the initial measurement.,A total of 1951 patients with 2416 lesions were enrolled into the study; 1943 lesions were eligible and evaluable for the primary efficacy end point, including 265 melanomas - 112 in situ and 153 invasive melanomas with a median Breslow thickness of 0·57 mm [48 basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) and seven squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs)].,The observed sensitivity of Nevisense was 96·6% (256 of 265 melanomas) with an exact one-sided 95% lower confidence bound estimated at 94·2% and an observed specificity of 34·4%, and an exact two-sided 95% confidence bound estimated at 32·0-36·9%.,The positive and negative predictive values of Nevisense were 21·1% and 98·2%, respectively.,The observed sensitivity for nonmelanoma skin cancer was 100% (55 of 48 BCCs and seven SCCs) with an exact two-sided 95% confidence bound estimated at 93·5-100·0%.,Nevisense is an accurate and safe device to support clinicians in the detection of cutaneous melanoma.,Although progress has been made in the detection of melanoma it still poses a challenge.,Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) may potentially be used as a diagnostic aid for the detection of melanoma.,In the largest international prospective study of its kind in melanoma detection, the EIS system Nevisense was shown to be both accurate and safe in the lesion cohort studied.,In the absence of a perfect gold standard, the accuracy of a device should be compared with the consensus diagnosis from multiple experts.