Hot Seat Diagnosis.

CONTEXT.­: Competency-based medical education relies on frequent formative in-service assessments to ascertain trainee progression. Currently at our institution, trainees receive a summative end-of-rotation In-Training Evaluation Report based on feedback collected from staff pathologists. There is no method of simulating report sign-out. OBJECTIVE.­: To develop a formative in-service assessment tool that is able to simulate report sign-out and provide case-by-case feedback to trainees. Further, to compare time- versus competency-based assessment models. DESIGN.­: Twenty-one pathology trainees were assessed for 20 months. Hot Seat Diagnosis by trainees and trainee assessment by pathologists were recorded in the laboratory information system. In the first iteration, trainees were assessed by using a time-based assessment scale on their ability to diagnose, report, use ancillary tests, comment on clinical implications, and provide intraoperative consultation and/or gross cases. The second iteration used a competency-based assessment scale. Trainees and pathologists completed surveys on the effectiveness of the In-Training Evaluation Report versus the Hot Seat Diagnosis tool. RESULTS.­: Scores from both iterations correlated significantly with other assessment tools including the Resident In-Service Examination (r = 0.93, P = .04 and r = 0.87, P = .03). The competency-based model was better able to demonstrate improvement over time and stratify junior versus senior trainees than the time-based model. Trainees and pathologists rated Hot Seat Diagnosis as significantly more objective, detailed, and timely than the In-Training Evaluation Report, and effective at simulating report sign-out. CONCLUSIONS.­: Hot Seat Diagnosis is an effective tool for the formative in-service assessment of pathology trainees and simulation of report sign-out, with the competency-based model outperforming the time-based model.

How often do level III nodes bear melanoma metastases and does it affect patient outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding the necessity of resecting level three nodes as part of an axillary dissection for melanoma. The objective of this study was to determine how often level III nodes have metastases, in patients with sentinel lymph node (SLN) positive, palpable and bulky axillary disease, and to determine patient outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed at two tertiary care centers of patients with melanoma that had level three axillary dissections. At the time of surgery, the level III nodes were sent as a separate specimen. Bulky disease was defined as a large mass in all three levels that could not be separated. RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were identified. Three percent and 18 % of patients with SLN+ and palpable disease, respectively, had further disease in their level III nodes. All bulky patients had level III disease. Those with level III disease had a worse 3-year overall survival than those who did not (15.2 vs. 61.1 %, p < 0.001). For patients with palpable and bulky disease, systemic recurrence rate was 65 and 88 %, with a median time to metastases of 13.6 and 2 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with SLN+ disease rarely have positive level III nodes, questioning the need for routine removal of these nodes. Patients with palpable and bulky lymph node disease have implied occult distant metastases at the time of diagnosis and treatment. With the advent of improved targeted therapies for melanoma, clinical trials evaluating their role in patients with stage III disease may be warranted to improve patient outcomes.