BACKGROUND: During the last decade, whole slide images (WSI) have been used in many areas of pathology such as teaching, research, digital archiving, teleconsultation and quality assurance testing. However, WSI have not regularly been used for routine diagnosis, because of the lack of validation studies. AIM: To test the validity of using WSI for primary diagnosis of skin diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 skin biopsies and resections which had been diagnosed light microscopically one year previously were scanned at 20× magnification, and rediagnosed by six pathologists (every pathologist assessed his own cases), having the original clinical information available, but blinded to the original diagnoses. The WSI diagnoses were compared to the initial light microscopy diagnosis and classified as concordant, slightly discordant (without clinical consequences) or discordant. RESULTS: The light microscopy and the WSI based diagnosis were concordant in 94% of the cases. The light microscopy and WSI diagnosis were slightly discordant in 6% of the cases. For one of the slightly discrepant cases the WSI diagnosis was considered better, while the original diagnosis was preferred for the other five cases. There were no discordant cases with clinical or prognostic implications. CONCLUSION: Primary histopathological diagnosis of skin biopsies and resections can be done digitally using WSI.
BACKGROUND: During the last decade, whole slide images (WSI) have been used in many areas of pathology such as teaching, research, digital archiving, teleconsultation and quality assurance testing. However, WSI have not regularly been used for routine diagnosis, because of the lack of validation studies. AIM: To test the validity of using WSI for primary diagnosis of skin diseases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 100 skin biopsies and resections which had been diagnosed light microscopically one year previously were scanned at 20× magnification, and rediagnosed by six pathologists (every pathologist assessed his own cases), having the original clinical information available, but blinded to the original diagnoses. The WSI diagnoses were compared to the initial light microscopy diagnosis and classified as concordant, slightly discordant (without clinical consequences) or discordant. RESULTS: The light microscopy and the WSI based diagnosis were concordant in 94% of the cases. The light microscopy and WSI diagnosis were slightly discordant in 6% of the cases. For one of the slightly discrepant cases the WSI diagnosis was considered better, while the original diagnosis was preferred for the other five cases. There were no discordant cases with clinical or prognostic implications. CONCLUSION: Primary histopathological diagnosis of skin biopsies and resections can be done digitally using WSI.
Authors: Tracy Onega; Lisa M Reisch; Paul D Frederick; Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Jason P Lott; Andrea C Radick; David E Elder; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.056
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: Anna Luíza Damaceno Araújo; Lady Paola Aristizábal Arboleda; Natalia Rangel Palmier; Jéssica Montenegro Fonsêca; Mariana de Pauli Paglioni; Wagner Gomes-Silva; Ana Carolina Prado Ribeiro; Thaís Bianca Brandão; Luciana Estevam Simonato; Paul M Speight; Felipe Paiva Fonseca; Marcio Ajudarte Lopes; Oslei Paes de Almeida; Pablo Agustin Vargas; Cristhian Camilo Madrid Troconis; Alan Roger Santos-Silva Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2019-01-26 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: 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
Authors: Maurice B Loughrey; Paul J Kelly; Oisin P Houghton; Helen G Coleman; Joseph P Houghton; Anne Carson; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Peter W Hamilton Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2015-05-16 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: M Babawale; A Gunavardhan; J Walker; T Corfield; P Huey; A Savage; A Bansal; M Atkinson; H Abdelsalam; E Raweily; A Christian; I Evangelou; D Thomas; J Shannon; E Youd; P Brumwell; J Harrison; I Thompson; M Rashid; G Leopold; A Finall; S Roberts; D Housa; P Nedeva; A Davies; D Fletcher; Muhammad Aslam Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2021-01-23