| Literature DB >> 20436794 |
G Denice Smith1, Matt Riding, Kim Oswald, Joel S Bentz.
Abstract
We have implemented an interactive imaging system for the interpretation of UroVysion fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) to improve throughput, productivity, quality control and diagnostic accuracy. We describe the Duet imaging system, our experiences with implementation, and outline the financial investment, space requirements, information technology needs, validation, and training of cytotechnologists needed to integrate such a system into a cytology laboratory. Before purchasing the imaging system, we evaluated and validated the instrument at our facility. Implementation required slide preparation changes, IT modifications, development of training programs, and revision of job descriptions for cytotechnologists. A darkened room was built to house the automated scanning station and microscope, as well as two imaging stations. IT changes included generation of storage for archival images on the LAN, addition of external hard drives for back-up, and changes to cable connections for communication between remote locations. Training programs for cytotechnologists, and pathologists/fellows/residents were developed, and cytotechnologists were integrated into multiple steps of the process. The imaging system has resulted in increased productivity for pathologists, concomitant with an expanded role of cytotechnologists in multiple critical steps, including FISH, scan setup, reclassification, and initial interpretation.Entities:
Keywords: Automated screening; UroVysion FISH; bioview duet; cytotechnologists; fluorescence in situ hybridization; image-analysis; image-processing; microscopy
Year: 2010 PMID: 20436794 PMCID: PMC2861842 DOI: 10.4103/1742-6413.62258
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cytojournal ISSN: 1742-6413 Impact factor: 2.091
Goals for integrating imaging system for FISH in cytology laboratory
| Accuracy | Contributing to the challenges of manual FISH interpretation are slide variations in probe signal strength and background fluorescence | Under the low light level conditions typical for FISH, advanced digital imaging detectors and image processors offer advantages over the human eye, including greater sensitivity and resolution. The goal would be to reduce occurrences of false positives and false negatives |
| Pathologist time | Manual screening required up to 30 min/case | Interactive automated screening would provide for optimized images of cells classified into normal and abnormal categories for pathologist review |
| Expanded roles for cytotechnologists | As cytotechnology evolves to incorporate molecular technologies, it is desirable to integrate and benefit from the skills and knowledge of cytotechnologists | Interactive automated screening would involve cytotechnologists, who would prepare the case, with troublesome cells highlighted for a pathologist to review |
| Quality control | Issues with hybridization quality result in turn-aroundtime delays if not detected soon after completion of FISH | Involvement of qualified morphologists (cytotechnologists) would allow for quality control at the completion of FISH |
| Interactive live microscopic review of relocated cells of concern | Some troublesome cells with apparent polysomy could represent overlapping cells. Live microscopic review of these cells would be appropriate, particularly for borderline cases | Interactive imaging systems record coordinates of cells for relocation and live examination under a microscope |
| Image archiving | There are CAP LAP requirements for image archiving that must be satisfied for CLIA laboratory accreditation | An interactive imaging system would provide a mechanism for image archiving |
| Location-guided screening | Sequential localization of abnormal cells by urine cytology (morphology), followed by UroVysion FISH, would provide adjunctive information for equivocal or indicative cases | An interactive imaging system would provide a mechanism to revisit cells of concern following FISH |
| Research applications | Sequential localization of cells by cytology or ICC, followed by FISH; data acquisition and storage; permanent record of data, etc. | Target FISH (ICC followed by FISH, etc.) is supported by the Duet imaging system, with software for data acquisition, etc. |
Figure 1Workflow steps. Steps involved in processing and completing UroVysion FISH cases are shown, including specimen collection, slide preparation, FISH, scan setup, reclassification, pathologist interpretation, and archiving and file maintenance
Figure 2Scan time and slide quality comparisons. a) Scan time comparisons for manual vs UroCyte filter slide preps for one split urinary sample. b) Brightfield slide quality comparisons for UroCyte and manual slide preparation methods for UroVysion FISH
Figure 3Loading slides onto the Imaging System. a) Duet computer interface for loading slides for an automated scan. b) Cytotechnologist loading UroVysion FISH slides onto modified stage for automated scan
Figure 4Adjusting gain and shutter speed for optimized scan setup. a) The DAPI signal is optimized for the system to detect cell nuclei. The image on the left is similar to what would be seen through the oculars. On the right is a representation of what the system recognizes as nuclei. b) Gain and shutter speeds are adjusted for CEP3 SpectrumRed and CEP 17 SpectrumAqua signals. On the left is an image similar to what would be seen through the microscope; on the right is a summary view of what the system “sees”.
Figure 5DAPI and probe signal patterns for an abnormal cell. a) Abnormal cell with typical patchy pattern of DAPI fluorescence. b) Combined probe patterns showing abnormal numbers of red, green, and blue signals.
Figure 6Target cell gallery before and after reclassification. a) Target cell gallery before reclassification, showing 144 target cells in the abnormal category and only 47 normal cells for this case. b) Target cell gallery after reclassification. Seventy percent of the target cells for this case were shifted into other categories during reclassification. This case was clearly positive, and full reclassification would not be necessary once four abnormal cells were identified.
Figure 7Cell targets before and after reclassification. As can be seen in this example, reclassification by a cytotechnologist results in changes to the numbers of target cells in each class, organizing the case for interpretation
Possible costs and benefits of implementation of duet to aid in the interpretation of UroVysion FISH
| Imaging system: Hardware and software | |
| Duet | Scanning station with microscope, computer, monitor, and associated peripherals. |
| Solo stations and keys | Two Solo stations for reclassification, as well as Solo software for pathologists' computers, were purchased. |
| System upgrades | Software and hardware upgrades are available |
| Construction of room to house duet and solo stations | The BioView requires that scans be done in a darkened room. We built a room approximately 12' × 6' which houses the BioView Duet and two Solo stations. Although the Solo stations can be placed anywhere, the cytotechnologists prefer to reclassify in a darkened room |
| Switch to UroCyte filter prepared slides | |
| Reagents and supplies | Increased costs associated with UroCyte method, including filter, reagents, and supplies |
| Cytology lab labor costs | Decreased personnel costs associated with shorter time required to prepare slides by UroCyte method |
| Cytotechnologist labor costs | Decreased personnel costs with UroCyte method because cytotechnologist does not need to monitor slide preparation |
| Duet vs. manual screening | |
| Cytotechnologist involvement | Added involvement of cytotechnologist in Duet-aided screening (scan setup, reclassification, and preliminary interpretation). This is offset by decrease in pathologist time. |
| Pathologist | Decreased personnel costs and increased productivity because of reduced time required to sign out case by a pathologist with use of Duet-aided interpretation. We estimate that incorporation of cytotechnologists and the Duet imaging system decreases pathologist effort in signing out cases by about 25 minutes per case. There may be increased accuracy as well |
| Scan times | Decreased scan times for UroCyte filter prepared slides; decreased TAT; increased productivity |
| Validation | |
| Personnel | R & D scientist/cytotechnologist |
| Reagents and supplies | If not using accessioned clinical cases, reagents and supplies are needed for slide preparation and FISH |
| Data storage | Back up storage devices |
| IT | |
| Back-up and storage | External or internal hard drives; space on LAN for archived images |
| Wiring/connection changes | Wiring/connection changes had to be made for communication between Duet and remote Solo stations |
| Personnel time | IT personnel |
| Training | |
| Personnel and educational materials | |
| Proficiency tests | Annual Abbott molecular proficiency panel and biannual CAP proficiency testing |
Figure 8Target FISH. a) Gallery for a target FISH case, showing dual images of each target cell. The brightfield image is on the left; the DAPI image is on the right. b) Brightfield image of a cluster of four cells. c) DAPI image of the same four cells. d) Red and aqua probe signals for the same four cells.