CONTEXT: -Whole-slide imaging technology offers promise for rapid, Internet-based telepathology consultations between institutions. Before implementation, technical issues, pathologist adaptability, and morphologic pitfalls must be well characterized. OBJECTIVE: -To determine whether interpretation of whole-slide images differed from glass-slide interpretation in difficult surgical pathology cases. DESIGN: -Diagnostically challenging pathology slides from a variety of anatomic sites from an outside laboratory were scanned into whole digital format. Digital and glass slides were independently diagnosed by 2 subspecialty pathologists. Reference, digital, and glass-slide interpretations were compared. Operator comments on technical issues were gathered. RESULTS: -Fifty-three case pairs were analyzed. There was agreement among digital, glass, and reference diagnoses in 45 cases (85%) and between digital and glass diagnoses in 48 (91%) cases. There were 5 digital cases (9%) discordant with both reference and glass diagnoses. Further review of each of these cases indicated an incorrect digital whole-slide interpretation. Neoplastic cases showed better correlation (93%) than did cases of nonneoplastic disease (88%). Comments on discordant cases related to digital whole technology focused on issues such as fine resolution and navigating ability at high magnification. CONCLUSIONS: -Overall concordance between digital whole-slide and standard glass-slide interpretations was good at 91%. Adjustments in technology, case selection, and technology familiarization should improve performance, making digital whole-slide review feasible for broader telepathology subspecialty consultation applications.
CONTEXT: -Whole-slide imaging technology offers promise for rapid, Internet-based telepathology consultations between institutions. Before implementation, technical issues, pathologist adaptability, and morphologic pitfalls must be well characterized. OBJECTIVE: -To determine whether interpretation of whole-slide images differed from glass-slide interpretation in difficult surgical pathology cases. DESIGN: -Diagnostically challenging pathology slides from a variety of anatomic sites from an outside laboratory were scanned into whole digital format. Digital and glass slides were independently diagnosed by 2 subspecialty pathologists. Reference, digital, and glass-slide interpretations were compared. Operator comments on technical issues were gathered. RESULTS: -Fifty-three case pairs were analyzed. There was agreement among digital, glass, and reference diagnoses in 45 cases (85%) and between digital and glass diagnoses in 48 (91%) cases. There were 5 digital cases (9%) discordant with both reference and glass diagnoses. Further review of each of these cases indicated an incorrect digital whole-slide interpretation. Neoplastic cases showed better correlation (93%) than did cases of nonneoplastic disease (88%). Comments on discordant cases related to digital whole technology focused on issues such as fine resolution and navigating ability at high magnification. CONCLUSIONS: -Overall concordance between digital whole-slide and standard glass-slide interpretations was good at 91%. Adjustments in technology, case selection, and technology familiarization should improve performance, making digital whole-slide review feasible for broader telepathology subspecialty consultation applications.
Authors: Jimmie Stewart; Kayo Miyazaki; Kristen Bevans-Wilkins; Changhong Ye; Daniel F I Kurtycz; Suzanne M Selvaggi Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-08-25 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeffrey L Fine; Dana M Grzybicki; Russell Silowash; Jonhan Ho; John R Gilbertson; Leslie Anthony; Robb Wilson; Anil V Parwani; Sheldon I Bastacky; Jonathan I Epstein; Drazen M Jukic Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Rashid L Bashshur; Elizabeth A Krupinski; Ronald S Weinstein; Matthew R Dunn; Noura Bashshur Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-02-07 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Gleyson Kleber Amaral-Silva; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Natália Rangel Palmier; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Paul M Speight; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Pablo Agustin Vargas; Alan Roger Santos-Silva Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: 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: J Digit Imaging Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Michael N Kent; Thomas G Olsen; Theresa A Feeser; Katherine C Tesno; John C Moad; Michael P Conroy; Mary Jo Kendrick; Sean R Stephenson; Michael R Murchland; Ayesha U Khan; Elizabeth A Peacock; Alexa Brumfiel; Michael A Bottomley Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Lee A D Cooper; Alexis B Carter; Alton B Farris; Fusheng Wang; Jun Kong; David A Gutman; Patrick Widener; Tony C Pan; Sharath R Cholleti; Ashish Sharma; Tahsin M Kurc; Daniel J Brat; Joel H Saltz Journal: Proc IEEE Inst Electr Electron Eng Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 10.961
Authors: 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 Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 5.534