Validation of Diagnostic Accuracy Using Digital Slides in Routine Histopathology

Overview

Journal Diagn Pathol

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Pathology

Date 2012 Apr 3

PMID 22463804

Citations 19

Authors

Laszlo Fonyad

Tibor Krenacs

Peter Nagy

Attila Zalatnai

Judit Csomor

Zoltan Sapi

Judit Papay

Julia Schonleber

Csaba Diczhazi

Bela Molnar

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Robust hardware and software tools have been developed in digital microscopy during the past years for pathologists. Reports have been advocated the reliability of digital slides in routine diagnostics. We have designed a retrospective, comparative study to evaluate the scanning properties and digital slide based diagnostic accuracy.

Methods: 8 pathologists reevaluated 306 randomly selected cases from our archives. The slides were scanned with a 20× Plan-Apochromat objective, using a 3-chip Hitachi camera, resulting 0.465 μm/pixel resolution. Slide management was supported with dedicated Data Base and Viewer software tools. Pathologists used their office PCs for evaluation and reached the digital slides via intranet connection. The diagnostic coherency and uncertainty related to digital slides and scanning quality were analyzed.

Results: Good to excellent image quality of slides was recorded in 96%. In half of the critical 61 digital slides, poor image quality was related to section folds or floatings. In 88.2% of the studied cases the digital diagnoses were in full agreement with the consensus. Out of the overall 36 incoherent cases, 7 (2.3%) were graded relevant without any recorded uncertainty by the pathologist. Excluding the non-field specific cases from each pathologist's record this ratio was 1.76% of all cases.

Conclusions: Our results revealed that: 1) digital slide based histopathological diagnoses can be highly coherent with those using optical microscopy; 2) the competency of pathologists is a factor more important than the quality of digital slide; 3) poor digital slide quality do not endanger patient safety as these errors are recognizable by the pathologist and further actions for correction could be taken.

Virtual Slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1913324336747310.

Citing Articles

Digital pathology systems enabling quality patient care.

Hanna M, Ardon O Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2023; 62(11):685-697.

PMID: 37458325 PMC: 11265285. DOI: 10.1002/gcc.23192.

Digital pathology: the effect of experience on visual search behavior.

Sudin E, Searjeant M, Partridge G, Phillips P, Hiller L, Snead D J Med Imaging (Bellingham). 2022; 9(3):035501.

PMID: 35572382 PMC: 9082631. DOI: 10.1117/1.JMI.9.3.035501.

Integrating digital pathology into clinical practice.

Hanna M, Ardon O, Reuter V, Sirintrapun S, England C, Klimstra D Mod Pathol. 2021; 35(2):152-164.

PMID: 34599281 DOI: 10.1038/s41379-021-00929-0.

Digital validation of breast biomarkers (ER, PR, AR, and HER2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners.

Salama A, Hanna M, Giri D, Kezlarian B, Jean M, Lin O Mod Pathol. 2021; 35(1):52-59.

PMID: 34518629 PMC: 8702445. DOI: 10.1038/s41379-021-00908-5.

Validation of digital microscopy: Review of validation methods and sources of bias.

Bertram C, Stathonikos N, Donovan T, Bartel A, Fuchs-Baumgartinger A, Lipnik K Vet Pathol. 2021; 59(1):26-38.

PMID: 34433345 PMC: 8761960. DOI: 10.1177/03009858211040476.

References

Weinberg D, Allaert F, DUSSERRE P, Drouot F, Retailliau B, Welch W . Telepathology diagnosis by means of digital still images: an international validation study. Hum Pathol. 1996; 27(2):111-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(96)90363-9. View

Kaplan K, Burgess J, Sandberg G, Myers C, Bigott T, Greenspan R . Use of robotic telepathology for frozen-section diagnosis: a retrospective trial of a telepathology system for intraoperative consultation. Mod Pathol. 2002; 15(11):1197-204. DOI: 10.1097/01.MP.0000033928.11585.42. View

Kayser K, Gortler J, Goldmann T, Vollmer E, Hufnagl P, Kayser G . Image standards in tissue-based diagnosis (diagnostic surgical pathology). Diagn Pathol. 2008; 3:17. PMC: 2362107. DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-3-17. View

Graham A, Bhattacharyya A, Scott K, Lian F, Grasso L, Richter L . Virtual slide telepathology for an academic teaching hospital surgical pathology quality assurance program. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(8):1129-36. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.04.008. View

Weinstein R . Prospects for telepathology. Hum Pathol. 1986; 17(5):433-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0046-8177(86)80028-4. View

Lopez A, Graham A, Barker G, Richter L, Krupinski E, Lian F . Virtual slide telepathology enables an innovative telehealth rapid breast care clinic. Hum Pathol. 2009; 40(8):1082-91. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.04.005. View

Horbinski C, Fine J, Medina-Flores R, Yagi Y, Wiley C . Telepathology for intraoperative neuropathologic consultations at an academic medical center: a 5-year report. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007; 66(8):750-9. DOI: 10.1097/nen.0b013e318126c179. View

Fonyad L, Gerely L, Cserneky M, Molnar B, Matolcsy A . Shifting gears higher--digital slides in graduate education--4 years experience at Semmelweis University. Diagn Pathol. 2010; 5:73. PMC: 3002318. DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-5-73. View

Tawfik O, Kimler B, Davis M, Donahue J, Persons D, Fan F . Comparison of immunohistochemistry by automated cellular imaging system (ACIS) versus fluorescence in-situ hybridization in the evaluation of HER-2/neu expression in primary breast carcinoma. Histopathology. 2006; 48(3):258-67. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02322.x. View

10.

Gabril M, Yousef G . Informatics for practicing anatomical pathologists: marking a new era in pathology practice. Mod Pathol. 2010; 23(3):349-58. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2009.190. View

11.

Renshaw A, Gould E . Measuring errors in surgical pathology in real-life practice: defining what does and does not matter. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006; 127(1):144-52. DOI: 10.1309/5KF89P63F4F6EUHB. View

12.

Fine J, Grzybicki D, Silowash R, Ho J, Gilbertson J, Anthony L . Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. Hum Pathol. 2008; 39(4):564-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2007.08.007. View

13.

Wells C, Sowter C . Telepathology: a diagnostic tool for the millennium?. J Pathol. 2000; 191(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(200005)191:1<1::AID-PATH624>3.0.CO;2-S. View

14.

Mori I, Ozaki T, Taniguchi E, Kakudo K . Study of parameters in focus simulation functions of virtual slide. Diagn Pathol. 2011; 6 Suppl 1:S24. PMC: 3073218. DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-6-S1-S24. View

15.

Turbin D, Leung S, Cheang M, Kennecke H, Montgomery K, McKinney S . Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007; 110(3):417-26. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-007-9736-z. View

16.

Papay J, Krenacs T, Moldvay J, Stelkovics E, Furak J, Molnar B . Immunophenotypic profiling of nonsmall cell lung cancer progression using the tissue microarray approach. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007; 15(1):19-30. DOI: 10.1097/01.pai.0000213143.32030.f5. View

17.

Yagi Y, Gilbertson J . The importance of optical optimization in whole slide imaging (WSI) and digital pathology imaging. Diagn Pathol. 2008; 3 Suppl 1:S1. PMC: 2500117. DOI: 10.1186/1746-1596-3-S1-S1. View

18.

Ho J, Parwani A, Jukic D, Yagi Y, Anthony L, Gilbertson J . Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol. 2006; 37(3):322-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2005.11.005. View

19.

Leong F, Mcgee J . Automated complete slide digitization: a medium for simultaneous viewing by multiple pathologists. J Pathol. 2001; 195(4):508-14. DOI: 10.1002/path.972. View

20.

Della Mea V, Demichelis F, Viel F, Dalla Palma P, Beltrami C . User attitudes in analyzing digital slides in a quality control test bed: a preliminary study. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2006; 82(2):177-86. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2006.02.011. View