Doing Too Much?
Entry posted by Mark A. Hurt MD
1,328 views
Mark A. Hurt, MD
I have been accused by some of â€doing too much†to complete a report. This has happened to me a number of times over the years. In wonder, and, to some degree, astonishment, I have listened to the criticisms, usually dismissing them -- losing clients, rarely, in the process.
What are some arguments that one is doing too much to complete a case? Although probably not a complete list, they are, in my experience, as follows:
- Obtaining too many recuts
How many times have you experienced, in the evaluation of a biopsy or an excision, missing epidermis, an edge without ink showing, solar elastosis only in a small biopsy when the differential diagnosis is basal cell carcinoma, or a tip with tumor? If you have experienced any of these situations (and I know you have), you probably obtained recuts (serials or levels) to attempt to resolve the diagnostic quandary.
Recuts help solve problems in two ways: one positive, one negative. In the positive, the simplest example is that one attempts to identify a tumor -- one doesn't see the tumor in the initial sections -- one obtains recuts and finds the tumor -- dilemma solved. In the negative, one attempts to identify a tumor -- one doesn't see the tumor in the initial sections -- sections are made to deplete all the tissue in the block -- no tumor is identified.
The positive case is obvious and self-evident: the tumor is identified. The negative case is somewhat more difficult because the expected lesion is not identified even after sectioning to deplete; colleagues have told me often it is a waste of time and money. Yet, the negative case is valuable because it often leads often to the identification of the fact of another lesion that explains the differential or that the biopsy simply missed the lesion. In either example, by depleting the block, one has more knowledge then if, say, no recuts or only one set of them was made.
- Obtaining too many special stains
Special stains have a particular place in the evaluation of cutaneous specimens. Although not considered "special," the H&E is, in fact, a stain, and probably the most special one of all because it provides structural contrast so that dermatopathologists can evaluate the form of a lesion.
Yet, by "special stains" one refers usually to histochemical stains other than H&E, and one refers to immunohistochemical stains and even genetic "stains" and ultrastructural "stains." Histochemical stains target specific structural components of or specific kinds of materials in the skin (or both), whereas immunohistochemical stains target lineages as well as certain proteins or even segments of DNA that aid in narrowing the differential.
In essence the usage of such stains has a single purpose: decision point testing. A decision point occurs when one observes the histopathological changes under a microscope and realizes that there is a differential diagnosis that can be settled or narrowed by employing a stain or a panel of them. For neurofibroma the number of stains is usually fewer than for lymphoma. For melanoma, it is often a lineage issue: epithelial versus melanocytic, for instance. There are dozens of examples that one encounters in a single day of sign-out.
There are myriad uses of such stains, and it is not always easy to explain to a client (usually a dermatologist in my case) why I had to use S100 protein, p75, and CD34 to come to the conclusion that the lesion was just a scar! After all, can't you just know that by looking? Well, no, not always -- and that is the whole point of using them.
- Quoting the literature too much
From time to time, I quote key articles when I produce a report. The point of it is to document the fact that I am not making up the diagnosis and that it is grounded in some empirical or systematic study of similar cases (or both). Most of my clients like this; a few do not; most are indifferent.
As a rule, I think the literature should be quoted with some degree of caution. It should be reserved for cases that are sufficiently unusual that the client might want to have a reference, or that I want the reference in the report for my own purpose to remind me of relevant literature if there is any follow-up on a given patient's case.
- Producing long comments
Why produce a comment at all much less a long one? Comments have a place in reports, but clinicians vary in how they evaluate comments. Some clinicians have told me that a comment is a crutch for when you don't know the diagnosis; this is partly true -- but it is not the whole truth. Comments serve for exposition of a diagnosis, for indication of the status of surgical margins, and, most importantly, they serve to explain a differential diagnosis when a definitive diagnosis is not possible in a given specimen.
I have had experience with many clinicians about how to use comments and whether to use them; some have even fired me for using comments. Despite this unfortunate situation, my philosophy is that comments should be as short and pithy as possible. This, however, is not always possible or desirable. My most common use of comments centers on the evaluation of melanocytic proliferations, specifically in explaining why I cannot exclude melanoma from the differential diagnosis in a given case. Even though I can weigh the facts of a case and even be biased toward nevus or melanoma in a given case, when uncertainty arises, it should be explained. It is at least an honest way to communicate.
----------
In essence, "doing too much" should be reframed as "doing what is necessary and sufficient" to evaluate a specimen. If, after this is done, someone complains, then let them make the most of it. I, for one, have a clean conscience.
I have been accused by some of â€doing too much†to complete a report. This has happened to me a number of times over the years. In wonder, and, to some degree, astonishment, I have listened to the criticisms, usually dismissing them -- losing clients, rarely, in the process.
What are some arguments that one is doing too much to complete a case? Although probably not a complete list, they are, in my experience, as follows:
- Obtaining too many recuts
How many times have you experienced, in the evaluation of a biopsy or an excision, missing epidermis, an edge without ink showing, solar elastosis only in a small biopsy when the differential diagnosis is basal cell carcinoma, or a tip with tumor? If you have experienced any of these situations (and I know you have), you probably obtained recuts (serials or levels) to attempt to resolve the diagnostic quandary.
Recuts help solve problems in two ways: one positive, one negative. In the positive, the simplest example is that one attempts to identify a tumor -- one doesn't see the tumor in the initial sections -- one obtains recuts and finds the tumor -- dilemma solved. In the negative, one attempts to identify a tumor -- one doesn't see the tumor in the initial sections -- sections are made to deplete all the tissue in the block -- no tumor is identified.
The positive case is obvious and self-evident: the tumor is identified. The negative case is somewhat more difficult because the expected lesion is not identified even after sectioning to deplete; colleagues have told me often it is a waste of time and money. Yet, the negative case is valuable because it often leads often to the identification of the fact of another lesion that explains the differential or that the biopsy simply missed the lesion. In either example, by depleting the block, one has more knowledge then if, say, no recuts or only one set of them was made.
- Obtaining too many special stains
Special stains have a particular place in the evaluation of cutaneous specimens. Although not considered "special," the H&E is, in fact, a stain, and probably the most special one of all because it provides structural contrast so that dermatopathologists can evaluate the form of a lesion.
Yet, by "special stains" one refers usually to histochemical stains other than H&E, and one refers to immunohistochemical stains and even genetic "stains" and ultrastructural "stains." Histochemical stains target specific structural components of or specific kinds of materials in the skin (or both), whereas immunohistochemical stains target lineages as well as certain proteins or even segments of DNA that aid in narrowing the differential.
In essence the usage of such stains has a single purpose: decision point testing. A decision point occurs when one observes the histopathological changes under a microscope and realizes that there is a differential diagnosis that can be settled or narrowed by employing a stain or a panel of them. For neurofibroma the number of stains is usually fewer than for lymphoma. For melanoma, it is often a lineage issue: epithelial versus melanocytic, for instance. There are dozens of examples that one encounters in a single day of sign-out.
There are myriad uses of such stains, and it is not always easy to explain to a client (usually a dermatologist in my case) why I had to use S100 protein, p75, and CD34 to come to the conclusion that the lesion was just a scar! After all, can't you just know that by looking? Well, no, not always -- and that is the whole point of using them.
- Quoting the literature too much
From time to time, I quote key articles when I produce a report. The point of it is to document the fact that I am not making up the diagnosis and that it is grounded in some empirical or systematic study of similar cases (or both). Most of my clients like this; a few do not; most are indifferent.
As a rule, I think the literature should be quoted with some degree of caution. It should be reserved for cases that are sufficiently unusual that the client might want to have a reference, or that I want the reference in the report for my own purpose to remind me of relevant literature if there is any follow-up on a given patient's case.
- Producing long comments
Why produce a comment at all much less a long one? Comments have a place in reports, but clinicians vary in how they evaluate comments. Some clinicians have told me that a comment is a crutch for when you don't know the diagnosis; this is partly true -- but it is not the whole truth. Comments serve for exposition of a diagnosis, for indication of the status of surgical margins, and, most importantly, they serve to explain a differential diagnosis when a definitive diagnosis is not possible in a given specimen.
I have had experience with many clinicians about how to use comments and whether to use them; some have even fired me for using comments. Despite this unfortunate situation, my philosophy is that comments should be as short and pithy as possible. This, however, is not always possible or desirable. My most common use of comments centers on the evaluation of melanocytic proliferations, specifically in explaining why I cannot exclude melanoma from the differential diagnosis in a given case. Even though I can weigh the facts of a case and even be biased toward nevus or melanoma in a given case, when uncertainty arises, it should be explained. It is at least an honest way to communicate.
----------
In essence, "doing too much" should be reframed as "doing what is necessary and sufficient" to evaluate a specimen. If, after this is done, someone complains, then let them make the most of it. I, for one, have a clean conscience.
6 Comments
Recommended Comments