Abstract
Pathologists use certain terminologies to communicate uncertainty in pathology reports. The message conveyed in pathology reports may be interpreted differently by clinicians leading to possible miscommunication. We aimed to compare the interpretation and impact of uncertainty phrases between pathologists and clinicians. A survey with examples of uncertain diagnoses containing ("suspicious for", "indefinite for", "favor", "cannot exclude", "suggestive of", "compatible with", "cannot rule out", "highly suspicious for" and "consistent with") was sent to pathologists and clinicians. For each diagnosis, participants assigned a level of certainty from 1 to 10 and were asked whether they would recommend treatment based on such phraseology. Thirty-six responses (from 7 pathologists, 10 surgeons, 8 pediatric oncologists, 8 medical oncologists, 2 radiation oncologists and 1 diagnostic radiologist) were received. Pathologists had a narrower range of uncertainty compared to clinicians. Wide variation between both groups was seen for all phrases except "compatible with" and "highly suspicious for". 'Indefinite for' showed the lowest mean of certainty (4.67 for pathologists; 4.00 for clinicians) whereas 'consistent with' had the highest (8.83 for pathologists and 9.38 for clinicians). There was a significant difference in the degree of certainty between both groups for "compatible with" (7.83 for pathologists and 9.06 for clinicians, p = .009). For treatment decisions, pathologists and clinicians agreed on initiating treatment when "consistent with" and "compatible with" were used and gave variable responses for the other terms. They proposed opposing treatment recommendations for "favor". Pathologists and clinicians varied in interpretation of uncertainty phrases which may impact treatment.