Validation of diagnostic accuracy using digital slides in routine histopathology.

László Fónyad, Tibor Krenács, Péter Nagy, Attila Zalatnai, Judit Csomor, Zoltán Sápi, Judit Pápay, Júlia Schönléber, Csaba Diczházi, Béla Molnár
Author Information
  1. László Fónyad: First Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. fonyadla@gmail.com

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.

References

  1. Hum Pathol. 1996 Feb;27(2):111-8 [PMID: 8617451]
  2. Mod Pathol. 2002 Nov;15(11):1197-204 [PMID: 12429799]
  3. Diagn Pathol. 2008 Apr 18;3:17 [PMID: 18423031]
  4. Hum Pathol. 2009 Aug;40(8):1129-36 [PMID: 19540562]
  5. Hum Pathol. 1986 May;17(5):433-4 [PMID: 3516858]
  6. Hum Pathol. 2009 Aug;40(8):1082-91 [PMID: 19552938]
  7. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2007 Aug;66(8):750-9 [PMID: 17882019]
  8. Diagn Pathol. 2010 Nov 22;5:73 [PMID: 21092205]
  9. Histopathology. 2006 Feb;48(3):258-67 [PMID: 16430472]
  10. Mod Pathol. 2010 Mar;23(3):349-58 [PMID: 20081805]
  11. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007 Jan;127(1):144-52 [PMID: 17145620]
  12. Hum Pathol. 2008 Apr;39(4):564-72 [PMID: 18234276]
  13. J Pathol. 2000 May;191(1):1-7 [PMID: 10767711]
  14. Diagn Pathol. 2011 Mar 30;6 Suppl 1:S24 [PMID: 21489195]
  15. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Aug;110(3):417-26 [PMID: 17912629]
  16. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2007 Mar;15(1):19-30 [PMID: 17536303]
  17. Diagn Pathol. 2008 Jul 15;3 Suppl 1:S1 [PMID: 18673497]
  18. Hum Pathol. 2006 Mar;37(3):322-31 [PMID: 16613327]
  19. J Pathol. 2001 Nov;195(4):508-14 [PMID: 11745684]
  20. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2006 May;82(2):177-86 [PMID: 16632072]
  21. J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(2):99-103 [PMID: 15068646]
  22. J Clin Pathol. 2003 Jun;56(6):433-8 [PMID: 12783970]

MeSH Term

Humans
Microscopy
Pathology, Clinical
Reproducibility of Results
Software
Telepathology

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0digitalslidesslidecasesqualitypathologistsdiagnosticusingsoftwaretoolsmicroscopyroutinescanningbasedaccuracyuncertaintyrelatedimagerecordedpoordiagnoses2pathologist1canBACKGROUND:RobusthardwaredevelopedpastyearsReportsadvocatedreliabilitydiagnosticsdesignedretrospectivecomparativestudyevaluatepropertiesMETHODS:8reevaluated306randomlyselectedarchivesscanned20×Plan-Apochromatobjective3-chipHitachicameraresulting0465μm/pixelresolutionSlidemanagementsupporteddedicatedDataBaseViewerPathologistsusedofficePCsevaluationreachedviaintranetconnectioncoherencyanalyzedRESULTS:Goodexcellent96%halfcritical61sectionfoldsfloatings882%studiedfullagreementconsensusoverall36incoherent73%gradedrelevantwithoutExcludingnon-fieldspecificpathologist'srecordratio76%CONCLUSIONS:resultsrevealedthat:histopathologicalhighlycoherentopticalcompetencyfactorimportant3endangerpatientsafetyerrorsrecognizableactionscorrectiontakenVIRTUALSLIDES:virtualsarticlefoundhere:http://wwwdiagnosticpathologydiagnomxeu/vs/1913324336747310Validationhistopathology

Similar Articles

Cited By