AIMS: (1) To compare the use of scanned virtual slide images (virtual microscopy) with glass slides (conventional microscopy) in the assessment of morphological characteristics of breast cancers within the setting of the Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH), involving a cohort of women under 40 years of age, presenting with breast cancer. (2) To assess the acceptability to histopathologists of the use of virtual slide images. METHODS: 13 histopathologists from the UK and Australia participated in the POSH pathology review. The observers were asked to assess multiple morphological features such as tumour grade and type. Comparisons were made for a single observer using both virtual images and glass slides. Intra- and inter-observer variability was calculated using the κ statistic and a comparison was made between the use of each image modality. RESULTS: Diagnostic performance with virtual slides was comparable to conventional microscopic assessment, with the measurement of agreement best for vascular invasion, necrosis and the presence of a central scar (κ=0.37-0.78), and poor for more subjective parameters such as pleomorphism, stroma, the nature of the tumour border and the degree of lymphocytic infiltrate (κ=0.1). CONCLUSION: Virtual slides represent an acceptable methodology for central review of breast cancer histopathology and can circumvent the need for either travel to view material, or the potential problems of sending it by post.
AIMS: (1) To compare the use of scanned virtual slide images (virtual microscopy) with glass slides (conventional microscopy) in the assessment of morphological characteristics of breast cancers within the setting of the Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH), involving a cohort of women under 40 years of age, presenting with breast cancer. (2) To assess the acceptability to histopathologists of the use of virtual slide images. METHODS: 13 histopathologists from the UK and Australia participated in the POSH pathology review. The observers were asked to assess multiple morphological features such as tumour grade and type. Comparisons were made for a single observer using both virtual images and glass slides. Intra- and inter-observer variability was calculated using the κ statistic and a comparison was made between the use of each image modality. RESULTS: Diagnostic performance with virtual slides was comparable to conventional microscopic assessment, with the measurement of agreement best for vascular invasion, necrosis and the presence of a central scar (κ=0.37-0.78), and poor for more subjective parameters such as pleomorphism, stroma, the nature of the tumour border and the degree of lymphocytic infiltrate (κ=0.1). CONCLUSION: Virtual slides represent an acceptable methodology for central review of breast cancer histopathology and can circumvent the need for either travel to view material, or the potential problems of sending it by post.
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: Sibylle Gündisch; Julia Slotta-Huspenina; Paolo Verderio; Chiara Maura Ciniselli; Sara Pizzamiglio; Christina Schott; Enken Drecoll; Christian Viertler; Kurt Zatloukal; Marcel Kap; Peter Riegman; Irene Esposito; Katja Specht; Gregor Babaryka; Martin Asslaber; Koppany Bodó; Michael den Bakker; Jan den Hollander; Falko Fend; Jens Neumann; Simone Reu; Aurel Perren; Rupert Langer; Alessandro Lugli; Ingrid Becker; Thomas Richter; Gian Kayser; Annette M May; Fatima Carneiro; José Manuel Lopes; Leslie Sobin; Heinz Höfler; Karl-Friedrich Becker Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2014-08-02 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: Joann G Elmore; Gary M Longton; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Tracy Onega; Anna N A Tosteson; Heidi D Nelson; Margaret S Pepe; Kimberly H Allison; Stuart J Schnitt; Frances P O'Malley; Donald L Weaver Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Máire A Duggan; Qiuli Duan; Ruth M Pfeiffer; Mary Anne Brett; Sandra Lee; Mustapha Abubakar; Martin Köbel; Monica Rodriguez; Aylin Sar Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2022-02-01
Authors: Marylène Lejeune; Benoît Plancoulaine; Nicolas Elie; Ramon Bosch; Laia Fontoura; Izar de Villasante; Anna Korzyńska; Andrea Gras Navarro; Esther Sauras Colón; Carlos López Journal: Histochem Cell Biol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.304
Authors: Kate Packwood; Guy Martland; Matthew Sommerlad; Emily Shaw; Karwan Moutasim; Gareth Thomas; Adrian C Bateman; Louise Jones; Linda Haywood; D Gareth Evans; Jillian M Birch; Ohud A Alsalmi; Alex Henderson; Nicola Poplawski; Diana M Eccles Journal: J Pathol Clin Res Date: 2019-05-23
Authors: Gwen Mhe Dackus; Natalie D Ter Hoeve; Mark Opdam; Willem Vreuls; Zsuzsanna Varga; Esther Koop; Stefan M Willems; Carolien Hm Van Deurzen; Emilie J Groen; Alicia Cordoba; Jos Bart; Antien L Mooyaart; Jan G van den Tweel; Vicky Zolota; Jelle Wesseling; Anna Sapino; Ewa Chmielik; Ales Ryska; Frederic Amant; Annegien Broeks; Ron Kerkhoven; Nikolas Stathonikos; Mitko Veta; Adri Voogd; Katarzyna Jozwiak; Michael Hauptmann; Marlous Hoogstraat; Marjanka K Schmidt; Gabe Sonke; Elsken van der Wall; Sabine Siesling; Paul J van Diest; Sabine C Linn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 2.692