Liron Pantanowitz1, 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. 1. From the Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Drs Pantanowitz, Contis, and Parwani); the Department of Pathology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut (Dr Sinard); the Pathology and Laboratory Medicine Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio (Dr Henricks); the College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois (Ms Fatheree); the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia (Dr Carter); the Department of Pathology, North Shore Medical Center, Salem, Massachusetts (Dr Beckwith); the Laboratory Medicine Program, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Dr Evans); the Department of Pathology, Baystate Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, Massachusetts (Dr Otis); and University Hospital, London Health Science Center, London, Ontario, Canada (Dr Lal).
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use. OBJECTIVE: To recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. RESULTS: Twelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image. CONCLUSIONS: Validation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.
CONTEXT: There is increasing interest in using whole slide imaging (WSI) for diagnostic purposes (primary and/or consultation). An important consideration is whether WSI can safely replace conventional light microscopy as the method by which pathologists review histologic sections, cytology slides, and/or hematology slides to render diagnoses. Validation of WSI is crucial to ensure that diagnostic performance based on digitized slides is at least equivalent to that of glass slides and light microscopy. Currently, there are no standard guidelines regarding validation of WSI for diagnostic use. OBJECTIVE: To recommend validation requirements for WSI systems to be used for diagnostic purposes. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a nonvendor panel from North America with expertise in digital pathology to develop these validation recommendations. A literature review was performed in which 767 international publications that met search term requirements were identified. Studies outside the scope of this effort and those related solely to technical elements, education, and image analysis were excluded. A total of 27 publications were graded and underwent data extraction for evidence evaluation. Recommendations were derived from the strength of evidence determined from 23 of these published studies, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. RESULTS: Twelve guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories validate their own WSI systems intended for clinical use. Validation of the entire WSI system, involving pathologists trained to use the system, should be performed in a manner that emulates the laboratory's actual clinical environment. It is recommended that such a validation study include at least 60 routine cases per application, comparing intraobserver diagnostic concordance between digitized and glass slides viewed at least 2 weeks apart. It is important that the validation process confirm that all material present on a glass slide to be scanned is included in the digital image. CONCLUSIONS: Validation should demonstrate that the WSI system under review produces acceptable digital slides for diagnostic interpretation. The intention of validating WSI systems is to permit the clinical use of this technology in a manner that does not compromise patient care.
Authors: Shaimaa Al-Janabi; André Huisman; Aryan Vink; Roos J Leguit; G Johan A Offerhaus; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Marijke R van Dijk; Paul J van Diest Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 3.411
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: Laine H Koch; James N Lampros; Laura K Delong; Suephy C Chen; John T Woosley; Antoinette F Hood Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2009-01-14 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Christel Daniel; Marcial García Rojo; Jacques Klossa; Vincenzo Della Mea; David Booker; Bruce A Beckwith; Thomas Schrader Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2011-01-15 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Ellen Mooney; Antoinette F Hood; James Lampros; Werner Kempf; Gregor B E Jemec Journal: Skin Res Technol Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 2.365
Authors: László Fónyad; Tibor Krenács; Péter Nagy; Attila Zalatnai; Judit Csomor; Zoltán Sápi; Judit Pápay; Júlia Schönléber; Csaba Diczházi; Béla Molnár Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Cynthia C Nast; Kevin V Lemley; Jeffrey B Hodgin; Serena Bagnasco; Carmen Avila-Casado; Stephen M Hewitt; Laura Barisoni Journal: Semin Nephrol Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 5.299
Authors: Daniel D Rhoads; Blaine A Mathison; Henry S Bishop; Alexandre J da Silva; Liron Pantanowitz Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2015-08-28 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Pablo Zoroquiain; Patrick Logan; Vasco Bravo-Filho; Natalia Vila; Samir Jabbour; Maria Eugenia Orellana; Miguel N Burnier Journal: Ocul Oncol Pathol Date: 2015-05-06
Authors: Brandon D Gallas; Marios A Gavrielides; Catherine M Conway; Adam Ivansky; Tyler C Keay; Wei-Chung Cheng; Jason Hipp; Stephen M Hewitt Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2014-11-12
Authors: Famke Aeffner; Hibret A Adissu; Michael C Boyle; Robert D Cardiff; Erik Hagendorn; Mark J Hoenerhoff; Robert Klopfleisch; Susan Newbigging; Dirk Schaudien; Oliver Turner; Kristin Wilson Journal: ILAR J Date: 2018-12-01
Authors: Mohamed Amgad; Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard; Eva Balslev; Jeppe Thagaard; Weijie Chen; Sarah Dudgeon; Ashish Sharma; Jennifer K Kerner; Carsten Denkert; Yinyin Yuan; Khalid AbdulJabbar; Stephan Wienert; Peter Savas; Leonie Voorwerk; Andrew H Beck; Anant Madabhushi; Johan Hartman; Manu M Sebastian; Hugo M Horlings; Jan Hudeček; Francesco Ciompi; David A Moore; Rajendra Singh; Elvire Roblin; Marcelo Luiz Balancin; Marie-Christine Mathieu; Jochen K Lennerz; Pawan Kirtani; I-Chun Chen; Jeremy P Braybrooke; Giancarlo Pruneri; Sandra Demaria; Sylvia Adams; Stuart J Schnitt; Sunil R Lakhani; Federico Rojo; Laura Comerma; Sunil S Badve; Mehrnoush Khojasteh; W Fraser Symmans; Christos Sotiriou; Paula Gonzalez-Ericsson; Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Rim S Kim; David L Rimm; Giuseppe Viale; Stephen M Hewitt; John M S Bartlett; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Shom Goel; Huang-Chun Lien; Sibylle Loibl; Zuzana Kos; Sherene Loi; Matthew G Hanna; Stefan Michiels; Marleen Kok; Torsten O Nielsen; Alexander J Lazar; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Loes F S Kooreman; Jeroen A W M van der Laak; Joel Saltz; Brandon D Gallas; Uday Kurkure; Michael Barnes; Roberto Salgado; Lee A D Cooper Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-05-12
Authors: Tracy Onega; Raymond L Barnhill; Michael W Piepkorn; Gary M Longton; David E Elder; Martin A Weinstock; Stevan R Knezevich; Lisa M Reisch; Patricia A Carney; Heidi D Nelson; Andrea C Radick; Joann G Elmore Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 10.282