Effect of MPATH‐Dx 2.0 on Diagnostic Agreement in the Histopathologic Assessment of Melanocytic Skin Lesions

ABSTRACT Background The revised MPATH‐Dx V2.0 schema simplified the original 5‐class hierarchy to 4 classes. Lesions previously classified as class II (e.g. moderately dysplastic naevus) in V1.0 are now classified as either class I (e.g., dysplastic naevus, low‐grade) or class II (e.g., dysplastic naevus, high grade; melanoma in situ). Objectives To estimate between pathologist agreement using MPATH‐Dx V1.0 and MPATH‐Dx V2.0 among four dermatopathologists assessing paired clinical and histopathology images of melanocytic lesions, blinded and unblinded to each other's diagnoses. Methods In this cross‐sectional reading study, dermatopathologists assessed cases from a curated set of paired clinical and histopathology digital images of 98 melanocytic skin lesions. We compared diagnostic agreement using the two MPATH‐Dx tools across three scenarios. First, we compared tools for independent review of the 98 cases (blinded review). Second, we compared tools for a subset of 51 cases where there was no consensus using MPATH‐Dx V1.0 (blinded review). Third, we compared tools when the same 51 cases were re‐read with knowledge of the other pathologists' diagnoses (unblinded review). Results In the blinded review of 98 cases, there was a modest increase in overall between‐pathologist agreement from using MPATH‐Dx V1.0 (average κ 0.52) to using MPATH‐Dx V2.0 (average κ 0.58). For MPATH‐Dx V2.0, the pair‐wise agreement for classes I and II were 69% (95% CI 62%–76%) and 78% (72%–83%), respectively. The increase in overall agreement was larger for the subset of 51 more difficult cases (blinded review): MPATH‐Dx V1.0, average κ 0.14; MPATH‐Dx V.2.0, average κ 0.31. When these 51 cases were re‐read in an unblinded setting, MPATH‐Dx V2.0 led to an additional small increase in overall agreement beyond unblinding effects: MPATH‐Dx V1.0, average κ 0.4; MPATH‐Dx V2.0, average κ 0.46. Conclusions The revised MPATH‐Dx V2.0 four‐class schema has the potential to improve diagnostic agreement, especially in difficult borderline cases.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
JEADV Clinical Practice
Published
2026-03-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/jvc2.70298
Primary Topic
Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effect of MPATH‐Dx 2.0 on Diagnostic Agreement in the Histopathologic Assessment of Melanocytic Skin Lesions

Belinda Lai, Katy Bell, Lin Zhu, Tristan Dodds et al.
JEADV Clinical Practice
Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
article

Effect of MPATH‐Dx 2.0 on Diagnostic Agreement in the Histopathologic Assessment of Melanocytic Skin Lesions

Belinda Lai, Katy Bell, Lin Zhu, Tristan Dodds, Peter M. Ferguson, Blake O'Brien, H. Peter Soyer, Gerardo Ferrara, Richard A. Scolyer
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background The revised MPATH‐Dx V2.0 schema simplified the original 5‐class hierarchy to 4 classes. Lesions previously classified as class II (e.g. moderately dysplastic naevus) in V1.0 are now classified as either class I (e.g., dysplastic naevus, low‐grade) or class II (e.g., dysplastic naevus, high grade; melanoma in situ). Objectives To estimate between pathologist agreement using MPATH‐Dx V1.0 and MPATH‐Dx V2.0 among four dermatopathologists assessing paired clinical and histopathology images of melanocytic lesions, blinded and unblinded to each other's diagnoses. Methods In this cross‐sectional reading study, dermatopathologists assessed cases from a curated set of paired clinical and histopathology digital images of 98 melanocytic skin lesions. We compared diagnostic agreement using the two MPATH‐Dx tools across three scenarios. First, we compared tools for independent review of the 98 cases (blinded review). Second, we compared tools for a subset of 51 cases where there was no consensus using MPATH‐Dx V1.0 (blinded review). Third, we compared tools when the same 51 cases were re‐read with knowledge of the other pathologists' diagnoses (unblinded review). Results In the blinded review of 98 cases, there was a modest increase in overall between‐pathologist agreement from using MPATH‐Dx V1.0 (average κ 0.52) to using MPATH‐Dx V2.0 (average κ 0.58). For MPATH‐Dx V2.0, the pair‐wise agreement for classes I and II were 69% (95% CI 62%–76%) and 78% (72%–83%), respectively. The increase in overall agreement was larger for the subset of 51 more difficult cases (blinded review): MPATH‐Dx V1.0, average κ 0.14; MPATH‐Dx V.2.0, average κ 0.31. When these 51 cases were re‐read in an unblinded setting, MPATH‐Dx V2.0 led to an additional small increase in overall agreement beyond unblinding effects: MPATH‐Dx V1.0, average κ 0.4; MPATH‐Dx V2.0, average κ 0.46. Conclusions The revised MPATH‐Dx V2.0 four‐class schema has the potential to improve diagnostic agreement, especially in difficult borderline cases.

JEADV Clinical Practice
The University of Sydney (AU), Alliance Bioversity International - CIAT (IT), The University of Queensland (AU), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU), Princess Alexandra Hospital (AU), Melanoma Institute Australia (AU), Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" (IT), Sullivan Nicolaides Pathology (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 27%
Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.