Journal of Pathology Informatics Journal of Pathology Informatics
Contact us | Home | Login   |  Users Online: 1014  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 




 
COMMENTARY
J Pathol Inform 2010,  1:7

Whole slide imaging for teleconsultation and clinical use


Department of Pathology, Shadyside Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 5150 Centre Ave., POB 2, Rm 201, Pittsburgh, PA 15232, USA

Date of Submission08-Apr-2010
Date of Acceptance06-May-2010
Date of Web Publication13-Jul-2010

Correspondence Address:
Bryan Dangott
Department of Pathology, Shadyside Hospital, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 5150 Centre Ave., POB 2, Rm 201, Pittsburgh, PA 15232
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.65342

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Dangott B, Parwani A. Whole slide imaging for teleconsultation and clinical use. J Pathol Inform 2010;1:7

How to cite this URL:
Dangott B, Parwani A. Whole slide imaging for teleconsultation and clinical use. J Pathol Inform [serial online] 2010 [cited 2019 Sep 19];1:7. Available from: http://www.jpathinformatics.org/text.asp?2010/1/1/7/65342

A thorough comparison of digital slide diagnosis with glass slide diagnosis is a critical hurdle for clinical use of whole slide scanners. The study by Wilbur et al. titled "Whole-slide imaging digital pathology as a platform for teleconsultation" examined the issue by specifically selecting difficult cases representing a broad spectrum of pathology from a variety of organ systems. The cases were characteristic of material that would often be referred for consultation. They then directly compared the Whole Slide Imaging Interpretation (WSII) with the Glass Slide Interpretation (GSI). A reference diagnosis was rendered on glass slides prior to sending the case for WSII and GSI consultations. Both WSII and GSI were performed at a third party lab by separate pathologists who were given limited clinical information. Thus, the consulting pathologists were forced to make a diagnosis on morphology alone without access to gross examinations, reference diagnosis, or referring physicians. A Zeiss Mirax Desk Scanner was used to create the WSI. However, the scanning magnification was not specified. The authors found an overall concordance of 91% between WSII and GSI, which is in line with other studies comparing these modalities. [1] They further analyzed the results by categorizing diagnoses into neoplastic and non-neoplastic groups. The neoplastic group performed slightly better with 93% concordance in comparison to the non-neoplastic group with 88% concordance, but the difference was not statistically significant. It is important to note that the authors also found three cases (5.7%) where the original glass slide reference diagnosis was discordant with the consultant GSI. Therefore, a built-in glass to glass comparison was performed in the study. It was determined that in these three cases the consultant GSI was most likely to be correct and the original reference diagnosis was incorrect. Assuming that the consultant GSI is the gold standard, WSII had a 90.6% concordance rate while the glass reference diagnosis had a 94.3% concordance rate. This correlates to a 3.7% difference between the consultant WSI concordance and the reference glass concordance to GSI.


   Comments Top


One of the concerns many pathologists have with digital pathology is the diagnostic capacity of the digital format. By choosing consult level cases for comparison of digital and glass diagnoses, it would seem that this study is a stress test for the diagnostic capacity of digital pathology. One of the key comments in this article was the observation that non-neoplastic conditions were more difficult to diagnose in the digital format. In addition, they made an observation that navigation at high power may have contributed to the difficulty in resolving inflammatory entities. This identifies a potential pitfall of WSI. However, there was no further discussion on whether it was the resolution at high power or the actual navigation that contributed to this difficulty. In practice it is likely to be a combination of both of these factors. Higher magnification (40Χ) scanning may help to overcome diagnostic challenges due to resolution.

In addition, other studies have shown that there is about a 10% discordance rate between digital whole slide images and glass slide interpretations. However, it is important to note that studies have also demonstrated a 1-5% discordance rate for glass to glass interpretations among randomly selected retrospective quality assurancecases. [2] This study has a comparable 5.7% discordance between the glass reference diagnosis and the glass consultant diagnosis. However, the authors did not thoroughly discuss this. Glass to glass discordance should be used as the gold standard for comparison when evaluating digital pathology. Making a morphologic diagnosis digitally is not going to remove the inherent differences in diagnostic interpretation among pathologists. In addition, there are some elements in the digital format which have not been optimized or even standardized for that matter. Important factors to consider include scan magnification, monitor resolution, monitor size, color calibration of the scan, and calibration of the monitor. In future studies, comparisons of WSI to GSI need to eliminate some of these inherent variables in the digital platform. Quantification and standardization of these factors will facilitate comparison of future studies of WSI. In the coming years, it may even be possible for optimized digital pathology systems to reduce interobserver diagnostic variability by using image analysis algorithms.

 
   References Top

1.Wilbur DC, Madi K, Colvin RB, Duncan LM, Faquin WC, Ferry JA, et al. Whole-slide imaging digital pathology as a platform for teleconsultation: a pilot study using paired subspecialist correlations. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1949-53.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
2.Raab SS. Improving patient safety by examining pathology errors. Clin Lab Med 2004;4:849-63.  Back to cited text no. 2      



This article has been cited by
1 The College of American Pathologists Guidelines for Whole Slide Imaging Validation Are Feasible for Pediatric Pathology: A Pediatric Pathology Practice Experience
Michael A. Arnold,Emily Chenever,Peter B. Baker,Daniel R. Boué,Bonita Fung,Sue Hammond,Brett W. Hendrickson,Samir B. Kahwash,Christopher R. Pierson,Vinay Prasad,Kathleen K. Nicol,Thomas Barr
Pediatric and Developmental Pathology. 2015; 18(2): 109
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Digitized Whole Slides for Breast Pathology Interpretation: Current Practices and Perceptions
Tracy Onega,Donald Weaver,Berta Geller,Natalia Oster,Anna N. A. Tosteson,Patricia A. Carney,Heidi Nelson,Kimberly H. Allison,Frances P. O’Malley,Stuart J. Schnitt,Joann G. Elmore
Journal of Digital Imaging. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 ATA Clinical Guidelines for Telepathology
Liron Pantanowitz,Kim Dickinson,Andrew J. Evans,Lewis A. Hassell,Walter H. Henricks,Jochen K. Lennerz,Amanda Lowe,Anil V. Parwani,Michael Riben,COL Daniel Smith,J. Mark Tuthill,Ronald S. Weinstein,David C. Wilbur,Elizabeth A. Krupinski,Jordana Bernard
Telemedicine and e-Health. 2014; 20(11): 1049
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 iPathology cockpit diagnostic station: validation according to College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center recommendation at the Hospital Trust and University of Verona
Matteo Brunelli,Serena Beccari,Romano Colombari,Stefano Gobbo,Luca Giobelli,Andrea Pellegrini,Marco Chilosi,Maria Lunardi,Guido Martignoni,Aldo Scarpa,Albino Eccher
Diagnostic Pathology. 2014; 9(Suppl 1): S12
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Central Pathology Review for Phase III Clinical Trials: The Enabling Effect of Virtual Microscopy
Pawel Mroz,Anil V. Parwani,Piotr Kulesza
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2013; 137(4): 492
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Validating Whole Slide Imaging for Diagnostic Purposes in Pathology: Guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center
Liron Pantanowitz,John H. Sinard,Walter H. Henricks,Lisa A. Fatheree,Alexis B. Carter,Lydia Contis,Bruce A. Beckwith,Andrew J. Evans,Avtar Lal,Anil V. Parwani
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine. 2013; 137(12): 1710
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
7 Digital Imaging in Pathology
Seung Park,Liron Pantanowitz,Anil Vasdev Parwani
Clinics in Laboratory Medicine. 2012; 32(4): 557
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
8 Digital imaging for cytopathology: are we there yet?
L. Pantanowitz,A. V. Parwani,W. E. Khalbuss
Cytopathology. 2011; 22(2): 73
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
9 Digital Imaging in Cytopathology
Walid E. Khalbuss,Liron Pantanowitz,Anil V. Parwani
Pathology Research International. 2011; 2011: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

 
Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

 
  Search
 
   Next article
   Previous article 
   Browse articles
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Comments
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3315    
    Printed119    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded453    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 9    

Recommend this journal